Talk:Eve Online/Archive 12

121.218.73.9 & Developer Misconduct
I have left a message on User Talk:121.218.73.9 asking the editor to refrain from adding POV and Uncited content to the Developer Misconduct page. If anyone has any input on this please post in here, on User Talk:121.218.73.9 or on my talk page. -- Richard Slater  (About) / (Talk) 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The changes say that the allegations turned out to be true in multiple cases. However, according to the source t20's case is the only one that turned out to be one of developer misconduct. No other developer has been found guilty. Plus the only thing t20 has been found guilty of is providing a corp with BPOs. I think it's a good idea to summarize what the article says. While Kieron mentions two allegations they are in fact threefold.
 * "[...] the alliance LV was given a heads-up by a volunteer that led to them acquiring a mothership [...] ahead of everyone else participating in the event where the ship was given away." The article doesn't say who's responsible for that. Kieron's letter states that CCP hasn't been able "to confirm nor deny the veracity of these allegations."
 * The character of Ishos Rerajan, later exposed as CCP t20, had the duty "to monitor the progress of the pilots below him, meaning he'd have access to their account information, which is in violation of EVE's rules." 'That's an allegation. Monitoring pilots' progress doesn't imply that I have access to these players' account information. It sounds more dramatic that way, sure. But I can as well just regularly ask them for their skill points or whatnot. According to the article no developer has been found guilty of using players' account information.'
 * When t20 was exposed as a developer he withdrew from his corp but, "a month before he left, he gave [his] corporation 10 BPOs." That's true. He admitted it afterwards. Guilty.
 * There isn't more to it. t20 has been found guilty of providing BPOs to his corp. 121.218.73.9, if you know a source that says otherwise, please add it and discuss it here. Aexus 14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has added the text once again, we might consider semi-protecting the page as the user is unregistered and that would help encourage him/her to register or join the discussion. --Wootonius 20:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like (semi-)protected articles. To me that's pretty much the last thing we should consider; although I've thought about it, too. Even if an editor repeatedly omits evidence for his edits we shouldn't semi-protect the article so quickly. Shutting out anonymous users because of what a single person writes isn't the way to go... yet. Apparently several editors keep an eye on this article - at least at the moment. Changes to the misconduct section stay live for a few hours before they're reverted. With that in mind I'd like to see what happens in the next couple of weeks. Asking for semi-protection will still be an option. Aexus 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree :) --Wootonius 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, semi-protection had its place when the t20 item broke in the news. In this case there is at least three editors who are keeping an eye on the article which should be sufficient to keep it in a reasonable state. -- Richard Slater  (About) / (Talk) 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protected
The article has been semi-protected now, this might be a good opertunity along with the release of the CSM white paper to go through the Developer Misconduct section and update it. -- Richard Slater  (About) / (Talk) 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering if the Developer misconduct should stay in at all, isn't it really old news that a vocal minority is clinging to? Why not instead focus on the elections of Stellar management, and what is current in EvE, that seems more encyclopedic to me. Martinj63 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am trying to figure out if there is another article on Wikipedia, or even a paper encyclopedia that might have something similar, by that I mean another company that has had accusations of misconduct brought against them. The only one I can think of from the MMOG worlds is SOE banning people for accepting duped money (aware it was duped or not), other examples from the wider world of business might be companies like Exxon or more recently HM Revenue and Customs. -- Richard Slater  (About) / (Talk) 09:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been looking as well, and at least in the paper Encyclopedia you don't have this morbid obsessiveness on alleged impropriety with the possible exception of Enron, and heaven help us if we start correlating CCP with Enron. I say leave allegations for forums, lets make this article about what EvE is not what EvE employees may or may not hav doneMartinj63 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay I do take issue with this line in the controversy and criticism section: spawning of limited supply blueprint items for their friends, and rigging of supposedly open ended player determined role-playing events. In one case the allegations ultimately turned out to be true.[94] The reference that is given is from an escapist article, no where in that article did they author say any of this was verifiable, the whole premis was basically a OMG what if this is true? Article. I think this should be reverted to it's original state as that clearly touches on the topic with out soapboxing.Martinj63 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Aexus (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Martin, that's not entirely correct. The article's allegations are threefold; the author eventually writes that one allegation is correct, namely that t20 "gave [his] corporation 10 BPOs." The other two are not. After the incident t20 admitted that he did give his corporation the BPOs. A few lines above this paragraph you find the section "121.218.73.9 & Developer Misconduct". There's a summary of what the article says and what it does not say. That aside, I think we should leave the misconduct in the article. To me taking it out would smell of cover-up and I wouldn't want to support that. True, the EVE Online article is probably one of very few that mention such a misconduct. But then, I can compare EVE and CCP only partially with other companies and other products. It is unique and it's also unique how the community was affected by the misconduct. As far as the Escapist article is concerned there's one truth: t20 gave away BPOs. I think the readers should know that such a thing has happened. Once.


 * Sorry Aexus making a special exception to leave the misconduct in to me smells of Bias when no other MMO has a misconduct section. And how was the community affected? (other than a Vocal minority blew the entire thing out of proportion,) CCP over compensated in trying to fix the matter and it still isn't enough, because at th end of the day it really isn't about misconduct, it's about the Goons getting their press time. The misconduct section is not encyclopedic in the least and should go period, if people want to read scandal sheets someone should create the EvE equivalent to the SUN.Martinj63 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If developers of WoW are involved in a scandal then it would be notable to add to that article. It is notable to keep it in this article.Alatari (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Aexus (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Martin, I don't judge about what the community did and to what extent "the Goons" are involved. However, I do feel that the community has lost part of its trust in CCP because of the misconduct. It's a feeling. Nothing I prove with facts. That's the way the community is affected in a unique way. On a side note: if we decide to take out the miscondcut I can live with it way better than with the constant changes and reverts we've had earlier. It may not be my personal wish but it will certainly be a decision by all of us. I would be fine with that.


 * And when we start replacing the encyclopedic authoritative base with feelings then we become just another fan/rant site. And I keep seeing a vocal minority talk about how the community at large is affected in a unique way and how the community has lost trust in CCP...as if it is chanted enough it will become reality. Finally, many of us have decided to remove the misconduct section many times, but a few crap stirrers in certain corps always put it back in. What is taking place in this article is biased unfair non-encyclopedic, and gives Wiki a bad name.Martinj63 (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Martin, where in this article do we talk about player's feelings. The only things in this article are facts.  It is a FACT that there have been allegations.  It is a FACT that one was proven true.  I think this sort of thing is extremely encyclopedic because of the fact that, as you point out, it doesn't happen elsewhere.  No other game that I know of has been proven to have helped out one corp (guild, etc) over others.  That makes this encyclopedic.  It would be soap-boxing to say "and that was wrong of them."  This article says no such thing.  In fact, I would bet that most, if not all, of the main editors to this page are not Goons, making your other point pointless.TheCommodore7 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the comment that Aexus made about his feelings, one would think that is very easy for most to comprehend. " It is a FACT that there have been allegations" This statement is so laughable, if you go down that road it allows you to place any ridiculous assertion because after all the mere mention of allegations are a fact.... You might want to look up non sequitur in the dictionary. And your belief negates my statement? You may also want to look up empirical evidence. See I get my viewpoint from reading the goons own words in their forums and other places. Again it's this type of witch hunting that has lead to the article being protected, it is also why the article didn't make the good article nomination.Martinj63 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I get your point about allegations NOT amounting to facts - and I agree with that - but I don't see why dramatic and widespread allegations that had (and still have!) a real impact on the EVE universe (players quitting, permanent bans, flame wars, open letters, articles etc.) should not be reported within a Wikipedia article about EVE. Heck, those allegations are one of the reasons why CCP decided to set up an Internal Affairs division in the first place, so that someone can investigate them. Those allegations, and all that followed, are a part of EVE history, and it is just wrong for people to continuously attempt to erase them. You can not change history. Furthermore, I can point you towards dozens of Wikipedia articles that reference allegations, just do a Google search for 'allegations site:wikipedia.org' and you'll see what I mean. Macondocontro (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2007 (GMT)

Macondocontro, I've reverted your change. I have four things to comment on.
 * 1) The reason you find the term "allegations" in other articles is that 1) these instances have proof and 2) they haven't been solved yet. For example the articles Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden, Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States don't draw final conclusions for the reader. They contain facts but do not say whether the allegations are ultimately true or false. The same goes for articles like Brian Roberts and Day care sex abuse hysteria that mention the term "allegations" in one or more sections. They collect information and let the reader arrive at a conclusion. For the EVE Online article the situation differs: the conclusion is here and wants to be presented. In February 2007 CCP was confronted with three allegations. Joe Blancato and a player "who asked to be referenced as Kugutsumen" claimed the following (see the Escapist article Jumpgate: EVE's Devs and the Friends They Keep). First of all, "[...] the alliance LV was given a heads-up [...] acquiring a mothership", secondly, CCP t20 had the duty "to monitor the progress of the pilots below him, meaning he'd have access to their account information, which is in violation of EVE's rules." And the third one: t20 was exposed and withdrew from his corp but, "a month before he left, he gave [his] corporation 10 BPOs." According to the article no developer has been found guilty of either using players' account information or providing players an advantage in acquiring a mothership. But one developer - namely t20 - has been found guilty of providing his corporation with BPOs. This third allegation is true. The section "121.218.73.9 & Developer Misconduct" a few lines above this text goes into more detail.

So ultimately one of these three allegations turned out to be true. Despite CCP's investigation there is no proof for the other two. If we wanted these allegations to stay in the article I could as well add something juicy to it. Something we can't prove either. I could write that CCP employs minors for cooking coffee and cleaning the office. 14-year-old girls; according to their accent they're Italian. And despite their age they do look hawt in their work clothes. And what's also worth noting is that last week when I visited CCP's office I peeked into one of the artists' rooms. And you know what? I saw someone - must have been a developer - fiddling with a corporation's hangar.

That is hot air. Did I visit CCP's office? Maybe. But actually not. Is anything else true? Maybe. But probably not. I can suspect a single developer - or the company as a whole - and they are still not guilty of anything but employing t20; the developer who supplied his corp with BPOs.

So, Macondocontro, please disclose your sources for allegations and please also disclose the appropriate proof. What - except for employing t20 - is CCP guilty of? And how do you know? Also, which player-run corporations are guilty of what exactly? And where did you gather the proof? -- Aexus (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Your change contains points of view.
 * 2) You wrote that allegations were "leading to heated debates". It is your point of view whether a debate is heated or whether any other adjective describes it appropriately. As per WP:POV you are to edit Wikipedia articles without your point of view. The correct form is that the allegations were "leading to debates". Without heated.
 * 3) Allegations were sometimes leading "to outrage and divisions within the EVE Online player community [...]". It's your point of view whether posts on the forums are an outrage or not. And it also is your point of view whether the allegations lead to "divisions". This subordinate clause is to be removed to comply with WP:POV.
 * 4) t20 didn't just supply his corp with regular blueprints, he supplied his corp with "extremely valuable blueprints". It is you point of view whether a blueprint is valuable or whether any other adjective describes it appropriately. Your change suggests that e.g. a low-value blueprint wouldn't have caused t20 trouble. To the reader is looks like a certain amount of developer misconduct is okay. But t20 supplied his corp with extremely valuable blueprints - and that was too much. In including your point of view you include bias. The correct form is "providing his in-game alliance [...] with six blueprints". Without extremely valuable.
 * 5) "widespread calls for termination" It is your point of view whether a call for t20's termination is widespread or whether any other adjective describes it appropriately. Readers make up their mind whether it is widespread or not. Your responsibility is to include the significant facts. The correct form is "calls for termination". Without widespread.
 * 6) You use weasel words.
 * 7) "there have been several allegations of developer [...] misconduct" Several? How many? Collect the proof for each allegation that turned out to be true. As you pointed out, "just do a Google search for 'allegations site:wikipedia.org'" and have a look at the articles that turn up. They include proof.
 * 8) "there have been several allegations of [...] player-corporation misconduct" Several? How many? Collect proof for these allegations, too. Be sure to name each one of them.
 * 9) "calls for termination" Who called for t20's termination? Where are your sources?
 * 10) "some long time players quitting the game" ''Some? How many? Who exactly? Once you have a list of players that quit EVE beacuse of the allegations: who really quit EVE? Whom do you personally know that didn't just start an "I quit" thread on the forums? Who continued playing or has returned in the meantime?
 * 11) Some players were "being forced to quit." Some players? How many? Who was forced to quit? What exactly happened? Where did you collect the proof?
 * 12) You claim that the allegations were the reason some players quit EVE. Let's assume you're right. Then it would be biased to include only this point of view, right? We should also highlight the other side: reasons why players have joined EVE since its release. Here are five examples of players that returned to EVE after a break. At least they say so. Locus Bey, Blood Wake, Ganaar, Minika and Skrot Nisse. And they are only five characters. How many other characters are there? And to how many players do these characters belong? Do they tell the truth? Do they lie? Is this encyclopedic content? No, I don't think it is. Whether a player quits or starts playing EVE Online does not matter for this article. I even go a bit further. Player posts on the EVE Online forums are not a reliable source for Wikipedia.


 * In reply to your points:


 * 1) I can agree with not mentioning any allegations besides the one that was proven to be true, but I am not okay with not stating that there has been an allegation, prior to the uncovering of the truth. The fact that misconduct was uncovered has proven that the allegation actually was true, and as such, warrants mentioning.


 * 2.1-2.2) You are right. I eliminated any point-of-view speech.


 * 2.3) The advantage that t20 gave BoB is directly proportional to the value of the blueprints in question. Had he given them commonly available and cheap blueprints, they would not have gotten much out of this at all. I can agree with the removal of 'extremely valuable' - but then let's come up with an objective term to give Wikipedia readers an idea of the significance of this action!


 * 2.4) Again, you are right.


 * 3) I can accept your point only partially. If you actually read the articles that you find by searching for 'allegations site:wikipedia.org' on Google, many articles do not contain any proof (see for example 'Anita Hill', 'Ray Burke', 'British Airways', 'Fidel Castro' etc.) . I think that you should not just consider whether allegations turned out to be true or not, but whether allegations had an impact or not. It would for example be wrong not to mention the moon landing hoax accusations in an article about the Apollo missions. Why? Simply because those allegations are part of history. Exactly like the allegations of EVE developer misconduct are part of MMORPG history. You can find numerous articles about them, even in mainstream non-gaming press, not to mention all the forum posts and endless online discussions. Those allegations have had, and still have today, an impact on the MMORPG universe. That counts for something, in my opinion.


 * 4) If there are any players who actually joined EVE because of the allegations, that would warrant mentioning, sure. Sounds ridiculous, though. One would think that if a player joins EVE, he does so because he looks forward to taking part in a wonderful MMORPG adventure, not because there have been allegations of developer misconduct. Also, you state that 'player posts on the EVE Online forums are not a reliable source for Wikipedia', which is just wrong. Of course player posts on the EVE Online forums would not be a reliable source for statistics on world hunger, but given that I referenced a player post in describing player behaviour, I think this is the best possible source I could cite.


 * A question for you: please explain why a section which is about developer misconduct (and has been titled 'developer misconduct' for a long time) has suddenly been given the sub title of 'Council of Stellar Management'? That is just not the right title. The section is clearly not about the Council, the Council is merely mentioned as a consequence.

-- Macondocontro (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
 * I can't help but view the continuous surgical enhancements that pro-CCP editors have made over time to this section as an attempt at sweeping a huge scandal under a rug. And I find that morally not acceptable. History can not be undone.

I think it is safe to assume that we are all interested in keeping the article encyclopedic. What we've done until now is voice our opinions. I'll comment on my previous speakers and end with a suggestion about how to improve the article.
 * TheCommodore said that "It is a fact that there have been allegations [...]." I think that's oddly phrased. Plus the bottom line is not the allegations but that one of the three allegations turned out to be true.
 * Martin, you haven't had proof for why it is right to remove the misconduct section. "What is taking place in this article is biased unfair non-encyclopedic, and gives Wiki a bad name." Also, It "seems more encyclopedic" to you if we "focus on the elections of Stellar management, and what is current in EvE". Why do you think the misconduct is less encyclopedic than the Council of Stellar Management and current developments in-game? If it objectively is less encyclopedic, is it encyclopedic enough to keep it in the article? What do you base your opinion on? Also please prove that this is all true, Martin; that it really is biased. We have a source and the confession. So removing the misconduct wouldn't be biased? Removing it would be fair? Fair towards whom?
 * "Finally, many of us have decided to remove the misconduct section many times [...]." Really? How many are many? You have. That's one. And who else?
 * Concerning my feelings, Martin, you said that "when we start replacing the encyclopedic authoritative base with feelings then we become just another fan/rant site." Martin, you twisted my words. We don't replace the encyclopedic authoritative base with feelings, we haven't done that in the past of this article and I don't start it. And that wasn't even your question to begin with.
 * Martin, you said that "making a special exception to leave the misconduct in to me smells of Bias when no other MMO has a misconduct section." Apart from the EVE Online article there is another MMO article that has a misconduct section. It is similar to this one. Nah, just kidding. I don't know of another one. But what if? Why don't we see a similar article? Is it because there have been cases of developer misconduct and these cases do not belong to an encyclopedic article? Or is it because there has never before been proof for developer misconduct in an MMO? Whether there is a pecedent or not shouldn't influence our decision.
 * RichardSlater is "trying to figure out if there is another article on Wikipedia, or even a paper encyclopedia that might have something similar". Martin, you have been looking as well and have found that "at least in the paper Encyclopedia you don't have this morbid obsessiveness on alleged impropriety with the possible exception of Enron." Now that you know all encyclopedic content currently available and now that you are qualified to say that, how does absence of a precedent mean that we cannot create a precedent?
 * t20 providing his coorporation with BPOs is not "alleged impropriety". Both the Escapist article's author and t20 himself proved that this alleged impropriety is a true one. According to the article the author proved it with research and the help of a player; t20 did it when he admitted it.

Now I write this to provide myself with an overview of our options. We've apparently shared most of out arguments but haven't reached a decision. Our options include
 * replacing the misconduct section with information about the Council of Stellar Management (CSM)
 * leaving the misconduct section in the article
 * without change
 * updating it with information about the CSM

Information about the CSM should be part of the article. I think we all want that. And well, that's a start. Let's see where we can go from there, shall we? Misconduct - no misconduct. Misconduct - no misconduct. Maybe misconduct with a change to make the section less challenged? Right now not all of us are happy. I think it's save to say that editing and reverting will restart when semi-protection stops. What about something like this as a replacement for the current misconduct section: "On February 9, 2007 one EVE Online developer has been found guilty of providing his in-game corporation with six blueprints. In response to public concerns, CCP has set up an Internal Affairs division headed up by Ari Eldon, better known in-game as Arkanon, whose responsibility is to monitor the activities of both privileged and player accounts operated by CCP staff in-game. Modeled on this division CCP plans to nominate the so-called Council of Stellar Management (CSM). According to a white paper published on November 11, 2007, the CSM will consist of nine player-elected representatives to the community. Members of the Coucil are to meet regularly with CCP staff in Iceland to relay the most pressing matters from the community and to take CCP's decisions back to the player base."

Something like that as a start. The sources are missing, e.g. GM Xhagen's announcement of the white paper. But other than that that might be an improvement over our discussion which hasn't led to much tangible material yet.

-- Aexus (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that my prior post was unusually worded at best. But I think all of you got the sense of my post, which was "although feelings and opinions were discussed on the talk page, only verified factual information was included in the article."


 * As to your re-write, Aexus, I like it, though you need to watch your tenses. How's this: "On February 9, 2007, one EVE Online developer was found guilty of providing his in-game corporation with six blueprints. In response to public concerns, CCP set up an Internal Affairs division headed by Ari Eldon, better known in-game as Arkanon, whose responsibility is to monitor the activities of both privileged and player accounts operated by CCP staff in-game. Modeled on this division, CCP plans to nominate a Council of Stellar Management (CSM). According to a white paper published on November 11, 2007, the CSM will consist of nine player-elected representatives of the community. Members of the Coucil are to meet regularly with CCP staff in Iceland to relay the most pressing matters from the community and to take CCP's decisions back to the player base."TheCommodore7 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and just a bit to add on here. Looks like we have a perfect source for that.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you...the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/arts/television/28eve.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin    TheCommodore7 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times is the last source you want to site, the Weekly World News is more acurate...besides scholarly text such as an encyclopedia entry would never use a Newspaper, especially a rag like the times as source material....but thanks for the laugh, it made my day.Martinj63 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Aexus 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the Misconduct section to "Council of Stellar Management" and replaced the former text with our new version. I've copied TheCommodore's text and added the appropriate sources; deleted the - now redundant - link to a New York Times article.

Martin, you are absolutely right. What an idiot I have been. I should have known that there was a vast left wing conspiracy at the New York Times against EVE Online. It makes so much sense now. Clearly, Hillary Clinton got ganked in the drone regions and is spreading horrible, horrible lies about how it was actually the Goons and BoB working together with the GOP. TheCommodore7 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What a lovely Knee Jerk reaction. My statement has nothing to do with American politics. In my scholarly pursuits News Papers in general and the Times in particular are not considered credible sources in academic circles. And speaking of agendas your's is so pathetically obvious. The article will stand I guess as a testament to Uber guild apologist. Martinj63 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is a major POV and valid enough source for this article. This is not a debate on the Talmud or Differential equations. It's an article about a pop culture game.  Get some perspective,Martinj63...  Alatari (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Any port that will support your agenda in a storm nes pas? "Valid enough" isn't a basis for writing an Encyclopedic article no matter what the topic, you know your argument here is one of Straw, everyone else with an IQ above 84 knows it as well.Martinj63 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA, Martin. The New York Times is a WP:RS.  I encourage you to find an RS to support your views; when you have, we will work both into the article.  Continuing with this ad hominem against Alatari and Commodore is misguided at best, and I'd strongly advise you to drop the topic or at least change your approach.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 07:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First off Nothing that I said is against Alatari or Commodore, I am questioning there source, which is my right. I find it amusing that you ask me to change my approach (or are you telling me to....your tone...it sounds as if you have been elected to the steering committee or something...) yet the approach of those that basically questioned my perspective and more or less called me a right wing loon of all things are not being addressed by you...why is that I wonder? I stand by my statement The NY Times is not a WP:RS, and considering it one is exactly why scholars refuse to let Wiki be used in any type of research.
 * There basically is a organized effort to smear a developer without proper evidence. This isn't standard in other articles about MMO's even on Wiki.Martinj63 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Without proper evidence?? We have his confession! Macondocontro (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Actually you implied I had about an 84 IQ and have been using vitriolic language throughout this discussion. The has been an admission of guilt by the developer t20.  Stick to the specifics and please stop attacking the other editors.  Whether or not the NYT is WP:RS is irrelevant for the same story appears in several sources and on the EVE Forums. This discussion has happened several times on this page... check the archives for sourcing and the continuing debate. Alatari (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No you are wrong, and you need to improve your reading comprehension. I said "anyone with a IQ over 84 can see it for what it is", that is not implying that you or anyone else has an IQ lower than that, it was a euphemism... Nice try though, also I may have been blunt but nowhere have I been vitriolic. It is interesting how antagonistic you get when someone disagrees with you and exposes your bias non encyclopedic writings for what they are. Martinj63 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for interfering, but my understanding is that, no matter how valid the sources, if the content is deemed non-Wiki-appropriate, then it ought not to be here, and it is unmutual to seek to re-add it once removed. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the content is deemed non-Wiki appropriate by whom? The whole point of the talk pages is that people tend to disagree on such matters, and you stumbled in the middle of one such disagreement. Macondocontro (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2007 (GMT)

Anyone that can read and comprehend the Wiki guidelines that's who.Martinj63 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinj63, I noticed that you have the habit of conveniently ignoring most of the arguments that people raise in reply to your comments, instead prefering to spam this talk page with apparently useless, pointless counter-comments. I guess this simply means that you are wrong and you know it. But let's verify my theory: for example, would you care to explain why, on December 18th, you wrote that "There basically is a organized effort to smear a developer without proper evidence", despite knowing that we have said developers written confession? I wonder whether I will get an on-topic, relevant response to this very specific question, or just another evasive comment with no relevant content. -- Macondocontro (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2007 (GMT)

As this appears to be getting personal, please remember civility and keep the discussion productive. I want a resolution to this as much as anyone else. --Wootonius (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to start this off again on the right foot, I must apoligize to Martinj. I assumed bad faith when I wrote my sarcasm-laden post on the New York Times. I harbor no feelings on the political leanings of Martinj nor do I presume to know them, and nor would I consider being a "right-winger" an insult.  I was merely sarcastically saying that I thought that Martinj's statement that the New York Times is not a reliable source of news to be spurious, especially when the news is about a computer game.  Later on, Martinj clarified (and I may be wrong) that he meant that the New York Times is not a reliable source for an encyclopedic article and, hence, not for use in this article.  My misinterpretation was an assumption of bad faith, and I apologize.


 * That being said, I believe that WP:RS and WP:Verifiability show that articles such as the NYT one above are reliable in the case of Wikipedia. Although Martinj's "scholarly pursuits" might not find news media such as the NYT to be a reliable source, that is irrelevant. It is a reliable source for wikipedia (which I would remind everyone is also generally considered unreliable in people's "scholarly pursuits.") TheCommodore7 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)