Wikipedia:Requests for comment/62.52.37.xxx

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This user engages in a sustained attack on the America's Army article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Description[edit]

At least two users have tried to justify an edit on America's Army, mentioning that the game is the most successful serious game to date. This user refuses to allow (he threatens to revert any such edits). The two users who have justified their positions with numerous references have been met with vociferous (and often incomprehensible) objection from this user.

This user has engaged in combative behavior in other sections of the Talk page of the same article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the user insists on stating outright that the game is propaganda. Regardless of whether or not it is (and I believe it may be), the issue is not clear-cut enough to mention that the game is propaganda without qualifying it, e.g. "Many journalists have labeled the game as propaganda." Andre (talk) 03:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

LOL well, it IS propaganda in its purest form. I've had a discussion with you filling the entire talk page and if I haven't made myself clear, I'll take it you will never agree with it no matter what I'll have as proof, so please: get over it. I haven't even touched the article for a long time now as I've more important things to do than have an argument on some web site (please don't take it personally). I could add very many more information, and I mean it, information that could and even should be rightfully included but that would make you hate me even more. I could even argue for deletion of "serious game" in general but as I see you've more or less dropped that childish and destructive resistance, so I'd consider me an asshole if I tried to be so destructive myself. I'm very pleased for that resistance in some way though. An opposition did the article well I think. Maybe I'll soon include some screenies (no fear: I'll make sure they as unbiased as they could ever be) and so far I'm really happy about the article and in general. I'm overjoyed, well, not about the article but in general. Thanks for your time anyway. Wheeee!!! These days are so great! And tomorrow is Friday already! Oh right, as the accused I'm here to be unhappy =) Let's all sue me for change!!! Nimm meine Hand - lass Vergangenes sterben. Dies ist die Zeit neugeborenen zu werden. Hope I don't sound arrogant on the page but I'm too blissful to be serious now!! Too enthusiastic or even naive you could say. Hey! Did Bond graduate recently? Congratulations then! I gotta go, see you on my new talk page (THIS one) soon. And don't forget: behave, boys! LOL. sorry. I shouldnt be writing now, cya nyway!! Ha e a nice day, enjoy!!149.225.36.155 18:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) (bad IPs)

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

  1. Serious Game discussion on America's Army Talk page


Applicable policies[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  2. Wikipedia:Three revert rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

  1. Serious Game discussion responses from Frecklefoot and K1Bond007
  2. This old version of the talk page has some stuff

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Andre (talk) 01:08, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. K1Bond007 01:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Response[edit]

1)This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Hello, I'm user XXX.XXX.XXX about which this discussion is and I'd like to defend myself. It would be a bit unfair if the indictee is not allowed to do so.

First of all, America's Army is a very interesting game in my opinion. You cannot even say "game" because it is an experiment that proved successfull and this aftermath will affect further "games" of that type. For me it is interesting, because it is a vanguard of a genre I personally dislike and wouldn't like to be successful as I'm a computer gamer myself. America's Army is the first step of a propaganda wave that now wants money from the victim (let me refer to players like that). The gameplay of America's Army is interesting too and accounts. The game makes use of really interesting tactics. Realism is important too because, well, the game is not that realistic at all. Weapons, well, if you're a gun nut or UN weapons inspector, you might be interested in that ;) . That section is the only section of little importance. "Cheating" is interesting because it is a fight the game might lose and because the developers threaten with executive power that would never care. As I dislike the game, of course, I'm biased. Biased like you, Bond, Freckle and Andre although I think you're biased towards US products or the real US Army or whatever. You admitted what you think: "It's so obvious you have problems with America or the U.S. Army that you've for some reason chosen this game and this arguement to tout your beliefs." I want you to know that I'm NOT anti-American because Anti-Americanism is an unfair generalization of people I mainly don't know. Those Americans I've met in real life were really great and friendly so I see no point in negative feelings towards them.

Above all, I'd like you to drop ALL of your double standards, Bond, Freckle and Andre. I mean it. First of all concerning propaganda. (I've recently found a summary, which explains why advertisement shouldn't be said but propaganda [1])

When it comes to the word "Propaganda" 100kByte of text were needed to include the point in the main article. Sometimes I thought you really don't think it is, sometimes that you just want to pretend to be ignorant. The sources provided came from universities, a global TV channel and serious newspapers of either the USA or allied nations. There are many more: for example [2], which is of very high quality but not of an authority and that's because I didn't want to place it to external links, who all have authority. Now, for you these sources were not enough. But when someone posts some links to non-authority sources it verifies his point, huh? Your hypocrisy really got on my nerves so sorry for my abusive language (whatever you mean by that).

Your hypocrisy continued unfortunately. Let's look at flaming.

Frecklefood: "K1Bond007, thanks for your help in dealing with <whatever his name is>. He sure is a whack-o." [3]

Bond: "The person, that you're well aware of, is being (to be absolutely frank) an idiot -again- and I'm hoping to get this resolved once and for all. I don't care if this has to go to the Mediation Committe or Arbitration Committee or whatever, I just want this done." [4]

Bond on discussion page:

"The sentence above about -people not knowing it is- is rubbish."

"WTF more can you possibly ask for. You're just wasting my time."

"We all know what you are and are full of." (alludes to "shit")

"Anyone that visits this talk page and attempts to edit the page knows you're biased. It's time for this immature BS to end, if that means the end result is you getting banned -permanently-. Then so be it. It's now my personal mission to see how far this baby can go. Sorry. I'm sick of your shit and I'm not going to waste anymore my time arguing with you."

"IT'S A DAMN GAME."

"Wikipedia needs less people like you. This is the most immature arguement I think I've ever been involved in and the sad thing is we've displayed enough sources that there should be no discussion about this at all, yet here you are - FIGHTING in the trenches against the tyranny of the "serious game". Enough is enough. This bullshit needs to end. One way or the other."

"Wow, what a load of BS. Why not just say "I'm biased towards this game and I disagree"?"

"Otherwise you're just spewing BS and crap."

These were your fine words from 23 Jan 2005 - today. ONE WEEK. If I were like you, I'd have initiated a comment on you.


And Andrevean is guilty for tolerating it when I get insulted and not tolerating when I do it. Also, Andre, you've wrongfully banned me for 3-revert-rule and wrongfully had the site protected and even for "vandalization". Did I start a campaign against you as an administrator? Next time follow this rule: when criticizing someone, do that after you've criticised yourself.


2)There's another point I'd like to mention: "serious game". Frecklefood, if you had presented that source, you'd have had an authority argument. It's a newspaper you've found, which would have deeply changed our discussion. Now, this doesn't speak for your side more than for my one, I'm afraid.

"the term used to describe video games for non-entertainment purposes"

Of course it is a serious game then! Purpose: Propaganda for the US Army. If you accept the definition, you must change your article about "serious games" fundamentally. "Simulation" (a word I dislike for its inaccuracy) is ONE example of a serious game. Even then I doubt the term should be included: "most successful" is subjective as the success depends on the number of people who had a better view on the army. And even then I wonder why it should be included because that would be like mentioning "living being" for a bird, while "animal" is sufficient. But before we start discussing where and how to include it, you should make the definition of "serious game" accurate. This means you should exclude all your glorifications. Just look at how you described it: a perfect genre: no disadvantages and pure success. You can just as well not accept the article as an authority argument because it should have at least two of different and independent of each other newspapers, not one. That's the reason why I haven't included "propagame" as it is only ONE article describing it like that. But this article is from a university and based on some hundred hours of playing time, which means it has certainly FAR more authority than your newspaper. But your definition must be changed at any rate. The newspaper article just made it more legitim.62.134.105.247 15:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)oops, please put that paragraph anywhere where it's supposed to be. I wasnt trying to be spamming with it. have no tiem byebye149.225.36.155 19:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Humblefool's Summary[edit]

  1. I have a little trouble understanding this dispute due to the unwieldly size of both the talk page and the article. It appears to be a dispute over the use of the word 'propaganda' to describe the game. A little more information would be appreciated.
  2. This page is listed above in the pages for comment. Why not let that play out for a bit?
  3. Please provide evidence of actually violations of policy, such as chronic reversions in the form of {diff} links, not just the threat of trouble.
  4. This page does need attention, though. It's bloated and overly redundant in parts right now.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Endorse; "bloated" is an understatement (and you didn't mention the standard of the English). Does a computer game warrant more than a paragraph (if that)? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    (A lengthy discussion ensued, prompted by the last question; it has now been moved to its own section, below.)


Julia's Summary[edit]

This is a waste of time. It is just a video game! Whoever made this RFC should be embarrassed. --JuliaW 13:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

I have tried countless times to have a discussion on many different topics dealing with America's Army with this user. He edits under the IP seen in the article as well as 217.185.104.xxx and at one point was registered with Wikipedia under the name "Nightbeast". He consistantly pushes his POV on the article to an extreme I've never seen on any other article. The discussion that I'm currently involved in there now has to do with listing America's Army as a Serious game. Frecklefoot and myself have listed numerous sources claiming the game is considered a part of this new genre including links to the official America's Army website as well as an official summit on the genre that is endorsed and sponsered by the U.S. Army. All previous attempts to make a change to the article adding this relevant statement, however, has resulted with him reverting it without any sort of factual evidence besides his own opinion on the topic.

I've previously, asked for help from admins (specifically Andrevan) who can attest to the problems with this user in the past dealing with the controversies of the game and the users adamant attempts to insert his opinion in the article. K1Bond007 01:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

To Humblefool[edit]

I can understand your difficulty in understanding the nature of the complaint (if your browser doesn't jump there, you must go to the "Serious game" heading on the Talk page). The Talk section on the problem is huge and I find the user in question's responses difficult to parse. The whole issue has been discussed for weeks now.

It boils down to this: America's Army is the world's most successful serious game. I mentioned this in the article, it was swiftly reverted and the matter was taken up on the Talk page. This user and others demanded evidence for the statement. I provided it, which satisfied all the other users but this one. He claims all the references I provided (and K1Bond007) are biased and unreliable. He states that the game can as easily be justified as "porn" as it can a serious game. He threatens to revert any attempt at mentioning that AA is a serious game.

America's Army is the world's most successful serious game. That's an assertion, not a fact, and having read as much of the Talk pages as I could before my eyes glazed over, not one that's well-supported either. And before you bring it up, citing the number of downloads of a free game -- BTW, are there actual statistics for that? -- says nothing about how, how often, or why it's being used; nor do the assertions of its developers/distributers. Your enthusiastic claim is not as bulletproof as you seem to think it is. --Calton 02:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about world's most successful, but the game is considered a serious game by many authorities, which is what the user refuses to acknowledge at all. K1Bond007 02:26, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

The facts are this: the serious game industry continually mentions AA as the most successful serious game to date. The US Army itself hosted the opening events and sponsered several serious game conferences because of America's Army. The references K1Bond007 and I have provided are irrefutable, but this user refuses to acknowledge them. If you scroll down to near the bottom of the "Serious game" section of the Talk page and read just the last few responses, you should get the gist of the complaint. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion arising out of Mel Etitis' comments[edit]

(The following was moved here from the "Humblefool's Summary" section, which it was cluttering up, and to which it was increasingly irrelevant.)

That's clearly nonsense - computer games are a major form of media and are a large part of Wikipedia. Some of our computer and video game-oriented featured articles: Super Mario 64, Nintendo Entertainment System, Goomba. Andre (talk) 01:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it was question, not a statement (and computer games aren't "a major form of media" — not on any definition of "medium/media" of which I'm aware). I'm not convinced, though, that an ephemeral game, unlikely to be around or remembered in a few years time, warrants this sort of attention in an encyclopaedia, but I am convinced that Wikipedia is likely to attract many people who think that a particular computer game that no-one outside its players have heard of is as important as a major author, cultural movement, or nation state, so I don't intend to push my view. My agreement with Humblefoot's summary is independent of my general position regarding the relative importance of games. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A few years back I used to write for a living, initially for Future Publishing, a venerable British computer games magazine company, albeit on some of their least distinguished titles, although the people were sound. I have been playing arcade/video games since the very early 1980s, and although I have a wide range of interests outside the field, they have shaped my life, although having that, as a Briton my experiences of the subject are tangental to the internet mainstream, which is mostly American - and I have nothing against America, I merely make this observation because it is true. My take on the above is that (a) purely in terms of box-office, computer games are the major medium (b) in terms of social impact, computer games are hard to separate from computers and computer technology itself, which they have in turn driven, and (c) in artistic terms, not a single computer game stands as a work of art, although Wikipedia cannot really explore this, because the nature of art is still under debate. The gaming medium is still in the developmental stages, akin to cinema circa 1900; it has not yet broken free of the technological limitations which make it a novelty. In the centuries to come it will mature, and eventually grow decadent, and then it will be replaced by something else; perhaps direct neural stimulation, or soma, or something that transcends current understanding. 'America's Army' is an interesting game, one which lends itself to discussion, but I cannot see it having lasting impact outside its fanbase, and I personally would have included it as a footnote in an article on "Video games which have been used for military purposes", along with Army Battlezone, the 'VBS' spin-off of Operation Flashpoint and the USMC version of Doom. The argument itself seems to be a storm in a teacup; "America's Army is frequently cited as propaganda (source, source), although (official source) denies this". I will not endorse this RFC, for the simple reason that the article needs a great deal of work until it will reach version one. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What are computer games a medium of? My point isn't about the "major" but about the "media" part of the claim. Print is a medium, television is a medium, radio and cinema are media, but computer games aren't (any more than passengers are a form of transport). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A medium of entertainment, like movies, TV, etc. Andre (talk) 03:28, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
I am quite literally baffled that the real issue doesn't seem to be being discussed. Regardless of your opinion or anyone elses that America's Army or any game related article should exist in Wikipedia or perhaps it's merit and notability? - the real issue seems to be that no one can make any sort of improvement to the article because of the user in question. He has stifled any sort of change to the article by simply reverting or by just changing the entire article into whatever his view on the game is. How can anyone reach "version one" with someone like this. K1Bond007 22:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, of course you're right; think of this as a whispered conversation at the back of the room.
With regard to the central point, though, part of the problem is that many of the key terms seem to be used in technical or semi-technical ways — for example, the phrase "serious game" (which has a whiff of the oxymoron). Doesn't 62.52.37.xxx have a point, despite his intemperate and somewhat inarticulate style? The game in question really doesn't seem to fit the definition of a serious game, whatever is said by the sources that you cite. Moreover, given that it doesn't (can't) accurately represent the reality of life in the army, and that it's used by the army to persuade people to join, isn't it, strictly speaking, propagandistic? Thus, although changes are certainly being made backwards and forwards, it's not entirely clear that 62.52.37.xxx is wholly in the wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I cannot debate whether the definition on the Wikipedia article is totally correct or rather encompasses what the genre really is or whether the genre name is an oxymoron or not. I didn't choose the genre name nor have I written any part of the serious game article. That being said, everything I have read on the genre fits the bill for America's Army pefectly. A serious game as defined by the Serious game summit are "applications of interactive technology that extend far beyond the traditional videogame market, including: training, policy exploration, analytics, visualization, simulation, education and health and therapy." - The U.S. Army is a major sponser of this event. In fact, a major speech given at last years summit was from the Army and the uses of the game for internal use as a simulation tool and educational tool for various roles. On the same website found here "A recruiting and public relations success, America's Army and The Army Game Project has moved into a new phase where the game is now becoming a platform useful for other aspects of the Army's mission, including training, experimenting with tactics and testing new equipment.". On the talk page I even outlined many other sources (for instance):
If you think I need more sources, tell me, I think Frecklefoot and myself have cited enough credible sources that the simple sentence referencing the game as part of this new emerging genre should be listed. K1Bond007 00:50, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'll make clear now that I have no strong view on this, either way. Having said that, the three sources you cite seem to me to be journalistic, written by people who in all likelihood got their information from the same sources. The second source is, nevertheless, a little less wholehearted in its acceptance of the label, and mentions some of the grounds upon which those in the industry have questioned both the label and America's Army's right to it. The fact, incidentally, that the U.S. Army is a sponsor of the event that came up with the dfinition of serious games is more a reason to be suspicious than evidence for the view that you're maintaining.
Still, this isn't a page devoted to the question of what goes into the article, but about the behaviour of a particular user. I think that his view is neither arbitrary nor obviously false. Neutral arbitration of the matter might be needed, because there are two sincerely held and incompatible views, but I shouldn't want to condemn one side or the other.
On the question of the use of the term "propaganda", the second of your reference sources refers to the game as the U.S. Army's "recruiting tool", and quotes an Army spokesman as saying that it's a "goodwill ambassador to the world, showcasing American values of teamwork and loyalty to the world". Taking this together with what I said in my last comment, wouldn't you accept that the term "propaganda" has some legitimacy here? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On questions of sources, please goto Google and type in America's Army serious game. You'll get thousands of websites about it. Like the Washington Post -> [5]. I'm about to call it quits with this article. I challenge anyone who thinks they can improve the page or help make it NPOV to go there and attempt it. Humblefool tried and it was reverted soon after. K1Bond007 17:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Given that my point was that your references were journalistic, possibly getting their information from the same source, and not authoritative, adding another newspaper reference doesn't really help.
More importantly, perhaps, I've three times offered you grounds for 62.xxxxxx's claim that the game is propagandistic, and each time you've ignored me. My feeling is that this is very much how the article's Talk-page discussion went. Neither side in the debate showed much in the way of a spirit of compromise, nor of "Wikiquette", nor any sign of thinking about what the other side said (though my sympathy is perhaps more with 62.xxxxxx), and from an outside point of view, therefore, this RfC is a bit rich. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And I stated that I wasn't going to get into that. The question over it being propaganda is a different discussion altogether. On the discussion which this entire RFC is about -- if a newpaper like the Washington Post (I bet you didn't even read it and just counted it off as a possible -same source-) isn't permissable as "good" evidence for an arguement then I'm done because now theres nothing to possibly use as evidence. WHAT IS GOOD?! No quotes from the U.S. Army, no articles from a national and credible newspaper, no articles/websites from AUTHORITIES on the subject of the genre. This is flat out bullshit that I'm even discussing this anymore and it sickens me that the Washington Post and other similar sources I just spoke about are not credible, but the article itself currently quotes the GUARDIAN and the NATION (two extremely POV sources) - So with that, I officially quit the article and this RFC, I've spent entirely too much of my time with this. It's obviously no use and a waste of time. K1Bond007 20:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye and thanks for your time anyway.62.134.105.114 22:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/62.52.37.xxx&oldid=1142570789"