User:Wageslave/Defence

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
has been demonstrating behaviour in clear violation of numerous Wikipedia policies, and generally going against the consensus on topics related to Microsoft, Apple Inc, Sony and Nintendo. The main three policies he violates are WP:NPOV, WP:CRITICISM, and WP:NOTE.


 * I generally prefer to address concensus in the talk pages, you'll find I've done very little "edit warring" whereby I revert changes to the articles, intead I've preferred to make my case in talk pages. Wikipedia's policy is not that a user has "no pov", or that articles be without POV but "all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively." And to that end, I believe that the root of this trouble is that a cabal of POSITIVE POV editors has chosen to wage a campaign of wp:harass against me for the purpose of intimidating me to cease editing.  Wageslave (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Desired outcome
The desired outcome of this RFC is for Wageslave to cease removing verified facts from Microsoft articles, and to cease inserting sensationalized criticism that violates WP:NPOV policy into articles relating to Sony, Apple Inc and Nintendo. If he cannot remain neutral, it would be ideal for him to stop editing altogether.


 * No one involved in this case is "neutral". It happens that my POV is less positive on a topic than they wish to enforce.  The edits I have proposed (that are the cause of this fracas) are mostly centered around two articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_4 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Online.  The talk pages of those two articles clearly demonstrate my point. Wageslave (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Description
Wageslave seems to be an editor whose sole purpose is to remove any negative information from Microsoft related articles, while at the same time, he adds negative POV into articles relating to Nintendo, Apple and Sony (mainly PlayStation articles).


 * False. My "sole" purpse, based on Frvernchanezzz's opinion is false. My "purpose" is clearity, neutrality and completeness.

A good example of his questionable edits and sneaky tactics is the following. After being called out by Strongsauce (Strongsauce pointed out that it is "strange" to see a member of the Xbox project maliciously editing Nintendo, Apple, and Sony articles), Wageslave then goes to join the PlayStation project, and the Nintendo project, and adds it to his user page; seemingly an attempt to trick editors who aren't "in the know" into believing he is a neutral editor who is genuinely here to help create a better encyclopedia.


 * False. No "projet" owns any article on Wikipedia.  Strongsauce's argument is wholly moot, and a violation of wp:agf and wp:pa. Joining the colletion of games related projects was for the purpose of monitoring all games pages (for my interest) and to simply grow as a wikipedian.  You are assuming that Strongsauces's attack required a defence.  Clearly it did not.  Wageslave (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Content forking
Wageslave has violated WP:POVFORK at least twice, when he created an article titled Wii technical problems, and the same with the page Playstation 3 technical problems.


 * Those forks were during my days as a new editor. And, it seemed a reasonable beginning for those pages would start with the current article on the topic.  Wageslave (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Wii page, at first, he created it just as an attack page, and it was rightly deleted. But he persisted with his POV pushing, and recreated the page as a cut & paste job from the Xbox 360 technical problems article, substituting "Xbox" for "Wii". The article was once again deleted.

He went on to create a page called Playstation 3 technical problems. As you can see the introduction is yet again a cut & paste job from the Xbox 360 technical problems article; however, he goes on to make up false claims about hardware failures - using the most dubious, one sided sources he could find to support his edits. None of these "problems" were/are ever widespread, and the article was just created to make a point. Furthermore, two of the "technical issues" weren't technical issues at all, as the replacing of the HDD does not void the warranty, and regardless of how inferior the PSN is to Xbox LIVE, this is not a technical/hardware issue with the console.

The article has since been turned into a re-direct to PlayStation 3.


 * Both those articles included relevant cited claims. Wikipedia's threshold is VERIFIABILITY not truth.
 * You say "as the replacing of the HDD does not void the warranty" but the citation said otherwise.
 * You say "regardless of how inferior the PSN is to Xbox LIVE, this is not a technical/hardware issue with the console." Clearly not. But it is a "technical problem" discussed widely, did the citation or language say otherwise?
 * Wageslave (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of PlayStation related articles
Since first coming to Wikipedia, Wageslave has made an effort to cast any and every PlayStation related article in a negative light; be it hardware or software. His very first edit was to go to the PS3 talk page, and try and get people to support his ridiculous and frivolous claims about the PS3's hardware/software. The user has also made "additions" to numerous PS related articles, by adding "Criticism" sections - these sections are frowned upon, and his edits were indeed the addition of negative POV, using no sources at worst, and dubious sources at best.

Some examples are:-
 * Killzone 2 - (where he used a dubious source, that was talking about a rumour, but cited it as a fact.
 * Tekken 5 - Added another criticism section with dubious source. Then added his own OR criticism.
 * FlOw - added another criticism section, citing a non notable, dubious source.
 * Calling All Cars! - Adds another criticism section. Changes the neutral "cell shaded" to the Negative POV "simple"
 * Dark Sector - He adds one source, to try to make the PS3 seem less capable than the 360 in the graphics department.
 * L.A. Noire - as it stands, this game has been announced a PS3 exclusive, but he adds speculation about a 360 version even though it has been confirmed numerous times (as recently as last year's E3) to be PS3 exclusive.
 * To try to "counter" the Xbox 360 technical problems article, he "reports" something about a code of error, that isn't widely reported, isn't widespread, and falls well within the normal range for electronics. He then makes a huge fanboy statement, while using teamxbox.com as a source for this "story".
 * Even though there are sources within the next few paragraphs, Wageslave insists that the PS3 isn't getting any favorable reviews.
 * He denies something as blatantly obvious as the chrome trim on the PS3.
 * As above.
 * Wageslave wants to remove all mention of the PS3 outselling the 360 from the article, even though it is entirely relevant.
 * Metal Gear Solid 4 - The 360 isn't getting this game, and the game is quite hyped, so Wageslave must do everything in his power to cast it in a negative light. Here he misquotes and misinterprets a source, while adding yet another criticism section. First off, Hideo Kojima is a well known perfectionist. Second, this belongs in the development section (if anywhere). Third, he isn't even criticizing the game, or the system, but says that "he wanted more power".
 * Proposes another criticism section. Criticism sections are frowned upon, and these "criticisms" are all either, not noteworthy, come from dubious sources, are extremely biased, original research, and aimed at making the PS3 look bad while making the 360 look good.
 * Re-adds criticism section.
 * Adds another criticism section.
 * Tries to convince people that this isn't a game - when it clearly is.
 * Insists on linking PS articles to Xbox ones, even though they aren't in any way related.
 * Same as above.

Negative edits in Nintendo related articles
Besides the repeated attempts at creating a "Wii technical issues" article, which I explained above, Wageslave also silences the achievements of the Nintendo corporation in other ways. Here are some examples of his behaviour.
 * Wageslave somehow feels that Wii Sports selling over 5 million copies doesn't mean it belongs in the List of best-selling video games. The game has gone on to sell near 20 million copies (as of today).
 * This edit implies that he doesn't like the fact that the Wii outsold the 360 in 2007, so he adds one extremely biased source to try and say that "the Wii is the biggest failure of 2007".
 * Cherry picks his words and sources to try to construct a negative view on Super Smash Bros. Brawl.
 * Re-inserts a negative POV rant that was removed from the article numerous times.
 * Here doesn't want in mentioned that doctors use the Wii to help sick people get better. Granted, the Wii doesn't help in any medicinal way, but it has been well documented that they are used in some hospitals to cheer up sick people, or to keep the minds of older people/people with dementia active.

Negative edits in articles related to Apple Inc
Wageslave also finds it edits Apple related articles in a negative manner. Here are some examples of his editing.
 * iPhone. Adds a section that cast Apple in a negative light, while using the worst source ever. Then changes the language to fit his POV.
 * Here it seems he doesn't want anyone to know about Intel's relationship with Apple. He then threatens to unilaterally remove the information.
 * iTunes - he proposes to add another criticism section (yes, you guessed it), then goes ahead and starts doing it.
 * Removes any mention of Mac OS X, seemingly to promote Microsoft Windows.
 * Removes mentions of Mac OS.

Wageslave edits that have been Pro-Xbox 360/Microsoft
Wageslave also frequently engages in the removal of well sourced, well written, accurate and up to date information from X360/Microsoft related articles. Here are some examples.


 * Wageslave frequently adds criticism sections to PS/Nintendo articles; however when a 360 article has some criticisms in it, he thinks it's crazy and just an attempt at trolling.
 * Here he removes a huge lot of information from an article, just because it has negative implications for Microsoft. The information was well sourced - even from MSNBC
 * Again removes a HUGE sections that is also accurate, well written, and well sourced - from the Washington Post, among others.
 * On 360 articles, Wageslave doesn't feel blogs can be used as sources - but on PS/Nintendo articles he uses them all the time.
 * Removes valid points that are well sourced without rationale.
 * Another diff of removing valid, well sourced, and accurate information -, He then goes on to remove more sources. And again. And again.
 * Pretty self explanatory.
 * Changes "shipped" to "sold" in a POV edit. Then adds sales numbers without any source.
 * Removes any mention of "Red Ring of Death (RRoD) - which is what the common term for the Xbox 360 general hardware failure is.
 * Creates the illusion that MS's WorldWide Telescope is praised by all.
 * He removes criticism of Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista.
 * Here he eagerly urges editors to POV edit the article to make it seem "more positive".
 * Tries to incite a "witch hunt" against a user who has called him out on his POV edit warring.
 * Removed criticism explicitly stated in the source, based on his own anecdotal evidence.
 * He removes mention of Internet Explorer's main rival, Mozilla Firefox, from this article.
 * Despite the new 360's being subject to the same hardware issues the old ones are (although at a much lower rate of failure), he insists they aren't, without quoting any sources.
 * Uses his opinion as fact.
 * While using the most untrustworthy source, Wageslave goes on to claim that the episodic packs for GTA IV will be new cities - I won't remove this from the article as yet (since no information about the content has been released so far), but I do believe some people are gonna have egg on their faces by the end of this year.
 * ???
 * Adds another criticism section
 * But then removes criticism without justification.
 * Removes criticism of Microsoft.
 * Wageslave proudly inserts his original research into many articles, but then claims something that isn't OR is, just because it has negative Microsoft implications.

Xbox 360 technical problems
Too numerous to state here, but please read/skim through the article, the talk page, the talk page archives, and the article page history. The vast majority (like 80%) of the talk page is Wageslave attempting to discredit sources that list actual figures for the failure rate of xbox 360's. These pages show that Wageslave is all too willing to bend the truth, break the rules, uses no/dubious sources, removed good sources, to try to "prove" that the Xbox 360 is just as reliable as any other console.

Wageslave has, for a long time, been trying to suppress the information contained in this article, and went so far as to create POV forks of this article (as explained earlier).

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:CRITICISM
 * WP:NOTE
 * WP:RS
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:V
 * WP:TALK
 * WP:OR
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:COI
 * WP:CON

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Here John.n-irl attempts to resolve some of these issues with Wageslave.
 * Here Frvernchanezzz attempts to get Wageslave to cease with his POV pushing, and be a more neutral editor.
 * Here 8bitJake tries to get Wageslave to stop destructive editing, and asks him to work collaboratively with other editors instead.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * Regarding John.n-irl's attempt, Wageslave rejected what John said, and accused him of stalking. The discussion ends.
 * Regarding Frvernchanezzz's attempt, Wageslave flat out rejects the comments, accuses the editor of harassment, and goes on to say he would welcome an WP:RFC.
 * Regarding 8bitJake's attempt, Wageslave ignores what 8bitJake said, and attacks 8bit's motives, calling them "passive aggressive".

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * John .n-  IRL  11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mahjongg (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Frvernchanezzz is not the only person dealing with this problem, and I can confirm his allegations on the technical problem page's history as of July 2007. The situation was seemingly dead since Slave's temporary disappearance during the months of August-December 2007 until the return of his destructive editing on February 2008. We are currently on our third month of being in a conflict with WageSlave over this issue. 8bitJake, Mahjongg, and I have been currently having problems with this. Dibol (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Frvernchanezzz is pretty much right on the mark with this report, as in what little interaction I've had with Wageslave, he has met me with nothing but belligerence and an overwhelming bias against Sony products. I was recently engaged in an edit-war with him (which resulted in a temporary suspension for the both of us) and, despite multiple attempts from more than one user to reason with him over what should have been a very simple matter, he ignored every request in order to apparently pursue his own agenda. HitotsuOne (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I am supposed to be on an extended Wikibreak, as soon as I found this page, I had to leave a comment. While I have not made any major contributions to video game articles, I do occasionally patrol the Metal Gear Solid 4 page and I must say that Wageslave is being very disruptive. He shows nothing but bias towards Xbox 360 and nearly every edit he makes to the PS3 article, Wii article or Apple article criticizes the company/product in some way. Not only that, but the sources he provides is either outdated or violates WP:ELNO in some way. I think the evidence Frvernchanezzz has listed speaks for itself. -- On the  other side  Contribs 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wageslave has not been the easiest editor to deal with. He has an instant razor sharp purity in his beliefs about topics on the Xbox 360 and is rather unwilling to look at any alternative points of view or reporting that is slightly contradictory to his beliefs. I believe that Wikipedia needs passionate editors but we need editors that are willing to compromise and work together. It seams that he is quick to anger and will type out long and heated editorials about the article that will sometime include personal attacks against other editors. I am all for a reasonable debate on the facts. Mostly I just wish that he would mellow out and realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative group effort and he should work with other editors instead of breaking them down.--8bitJake (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I initially started editing the xbox 360 technical problems article about a year ago because I know Dutch, and there was a need for someone who could translate some stuff for the section about the Dutch TV program Kassa, which had done a special about the Xbox 360 disk scratching problem, I quickly found out that my, and others, edits in this particular article were very often vandalised, so I added the article to my Watchlist. I soon found out that Wageslave did everything in his power to demolish or downplay my edits, and to do edits that appeared to be "damage control" edits for Microsoft, or edits to plug the Xbox 360 and to put down the competing systems. One blatant example I discovered was that he had started a "technical problems" article for the two competing systems (PS3 and WII) too, which were basically copies of the xbox 360 technical problems article, seemingly to try to convince people that competing systems had technical problems that were "just as bad" as the xbox 360 had, which was patently false! In these articles he also blatantly lied by claiming "Since its release the Playstation 3 / WII has gained a reputation for its poor reliability and technical problems, including occurrences of total failure, where the unit becomes completely unusable.". At an almost daily basis he has been using any excuse he can think of to demolish the technical problems article, or to remove material that is negative for Microsoft. My general response has been to find more references for the material he wanted to remove. One user in the talk page called his approach the "death by a thousand cuts" method, which I think is very aptly observed. Mahjongg (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tired to see Wageslave disrupting well writen articles only to praise their Fanboyism of Microsoft and Xbox 360. He engaged to defame Sony-related consoles and franchises articles, pushing POV edits in 3RR violations without propper discussion. When he talks is easy perceived a highly emotional fanboyism disruptive behavior failing in Ignore all rules guideline. --Ciao 90 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really sure on which area I am classed so thought I'd comment here just in case, as I've commented before regarding this. Wageslave's views can definitely be seen as biased. I thought that I would make my opinion heard, as an edit I made in good faith was criticised as being biased even though I didn't mean it to be, I simply stopped making edits on said page (excluding tidying grammar etc). I feel that if you are criticised as being biased that you should perhaps stop making controversial edits that aren't acceptable by others. Wageslave has sort of shot first and asked later, whats the point of the talk page if you don't use it, and if you do use it, go ahead and ignore it anyway? However, when my criticed edit was mentioned, he supported it Chocobogamer (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Response
''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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Please see Wageslave (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
''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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Ncmvocalist
The subject of this Rfc, User:Wageslave has clearly engaged in a variety of disruptive editing, including edit-warring - his block log indicates that he was recently blocked (for 24 hours) for violating the 3RR on one article. It has been well over 48 hours since the Rfc was opened but the editor chose not to respond here. Unless this editor changes his editorial approach soon, and is willing to comply with the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and norms, then this editor may find himself blocked for an extended period of time to prevent further disruption. If his editorial approach has not changed before 3 May 2008 (UTC), and he continues editing in the manner described by the complaining party, or worse, then I recommend he be blocked for at least 3 months.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Ciao 90 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.