Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wageslave

Other users who endorse this summary
In regards to this section, I have copy and pasted the first three from the draft RFC report. Their additions can be seen here, here, and here. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside views
I've added two outside views that were written on the wrong page (here) to here. The diffs of the original additions are here and here. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An anons outside view
I've copied this from the draft report. It was added by

''--- Hello, I'm not an editor or anything at wikipedia, but I browse a site daily called (www.n4g.com) where wageslave does as well. He's also very disruptive there as well and never follows contributer rules.''

You can look through his comments, submissions, and forum posts as proof: http://www.n4g.com/up/17934.aspx

Thanks. — Frvernchanezzz (talk • contribs) 02:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

i dont edit eitehr but...
this is another of wageslaves profiles

http://reddit.com/user/wageslave/

he's pretty much a fanboy/troll evrywhere he goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.148.39 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My Defence
I've decided I may like to make comments, but it would best be done "in-line" with every claim from the RFC.

How does one properly respond to this in that manner?

Wageslave (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that you are supposed to keep your comments to the "Response" section. --8bitJake (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wageslave's response
Instead of responding here, where he was supposed to, Wageslave has responded here - another example of his unwillingness to do things the right way.

Anyway, I have added rebuttals to his arguments on that page as well. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel he may be making it hard for anyone who would like to comment to follow the RFC, the most current version seems to be on his user page. Why is he responding there? And by responding after each diff link he makes the page itself almost unreadable. (Thank you Frvernchanezzz for at least using italics.) John  .n-  IRL  18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was responding there because i was having some issues with the other page. I couldnt add the material with signatures, and the editing seemed to be causing me to make a mess. See above. Wageslave (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * @ john.n-irl, my edits were in blocks, point-by-point.
 * Frvernchanezzz is editing now in between every one of my sentances, and I've asked him to stop here on his discussion page and he has not. The page is becoming undreadible because he's cutting in with rebuttal in a line-by-line basis.  Wageslave (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * John's initial complaint was that you, Wageslave, did not respond on the RFC page, and that where you have written below or beside each one of the doffs was what made it difficult to read because you couldn't tell my writing from yours. I, at least put mine in italics and indented. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS
''Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive.''

Wageslave has recently been engaging in canvassing other editors to respond to this RFC. Some of the policies he has broken on WP:CANVASS are

Excessive cross-posting

''Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive.''
 * He spammed the talk pages of editors who were not involved in any of the disputes on this RFC to influence the outcome of the debate.

Campaigning

''Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.''
 * He campaigned to sway those uninvolved editors into believing he is being harassed and misrepresented, when in fact, the RFC was brought about over his questionable edits over the past 12 months.

Votestacking

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.
 * Wageslave engaged in votestacking by selectively notifying users who he thought would be inclined to agree with him, as all were members of Wikiproject Xbox/editors of Xbox related articles. However, I believe that at least two of these editors, Xenocidic and Blackwatch21, are pretty fair and neutral editors, so I think they may well be inclined to agree that Wageslave's activities have been quite disruptive.

The diffs of his canvassing are below.
 * 1


 * 2


 * 3


 * 4


 * 5


 * 6


 * 7


 * Also, Wageslave still has not written a response here, which is where the response to an RFC must be written. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I kinda got the feeling when he posted on my talk page that he assumed I was going to back him up and thats why he was requesting my input Chocobogamer (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
there has since been a more suitable (and already partially agreed to) resolution proposed, and this proposal is therefore no longer active. please see below this for the current active proposal Chocobogamer (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have come up with a resolution that should work if everybody agrees to it.

The involved editors agree to "walk away" from this particular RFC, and let it be closed by an admin, if the following conditions are met:-
 * 1) Wageslave is not to edit Sony/Apple/Nintendo related articles for a period of three months (with the exception of obvious vandalism such as page blanking).
 * 2) Frvernchanezzz, John.n-irl, 8bitJake and Mahjongg (as the main editors in this dispute) are not to edit Xbox/Microsoft related articles for a period of three months (with the exception of obvious vandalism such as page blanking).
 * 3) After the three months is up, the above editors must discuss on the talk page of the other articles before making an edit, and the proposal must gain the support/approval of the community before it gets added.

I think it's pretty acceptable as it is, but we may need to discuss things such as the duration (three months seem to long for some), or that 8bitJake be given some leverage to edit Xbox 360 technical problems since that's pretty much the only thing he edits.

Thoughts? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wageslave can edit xbox 360 related articles but we can't? Doesn't that mean that Wageslave can oppose his "opinions" on the Xbox 360 technical problems article and we can't stop him doing that? That is the exact opposite of what this RFC was started for! Can't agree to that! There would be nothing left of the article if wageslave is given free reign to demolish it. Mahjongg (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok, this proposal needs a bit of work. And by a bit, I mean "a lot". I think first and foremost, Wageslave must admit to have been engaged in disruptive editing, and must agree not do do so again under penalty of a lengthy block. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats a ridiculous proposal. You're punishung yourself, John.n-irl, 8bitJake and Mahjongg more than Wageslave, and he's the one in the wrong! He's an MS fanboy, could you imagine the edits of the 360 page if the people above couldn't revert it. He'd have near free reign to write crap like "The Xbox 360 is the greatest selling console of all time, and, a first for consumer hardware, has a 100% perfect reliability record". I think he should be banned, temporarily, from editing any articles regarding Microsoft, Sony, Apple and Nintendo for x amount of time, unless he admits that he has made biased edits. If he admits to this, and agrees not to, then maybe we can just move on.
 * I can't see the benefit of blocking yourself, John.n-irl, 8bitJake and Mahjongg from editing said pages. Chocobogamer (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is crap. I am not on trial here. I don't think we should be pushished for what he did. We are the victims here. --8bitJake (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

a more sensible resolution
Your thoughts? Chocobogamer (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If Wageslave admits he has made biased edits, and agrees to stop make said edits in the future under threat of a lifetime ban, on said articles, or on the site in its entirity, we simply move on and forget. Also, if Wageslave admits and agrees: Frvernchanezzz, John.n-irl, 8bitJake, Mahjongg and Chocobogamer cannot nitpick fair edits made by Wageslave
 * If Wageslave refuses to admit he has made biased edits, or does not agree to stop making said edits in the future, we take this further, seeking an edit block on pages regarding Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Apple products.


 * Completely agree. Please disregard what I wrote above. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put a note box at the introduction of your proposal saying its 'not active' and to see this one. :) Chocobogamer (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, and I agree to the last bit (about nitpicking edits) too, in the past I did not interfere with Wageslave's edits that seemed fair, so that is not new to me. Although it's not always easy to determine whether or not his edit is still simply a part of his agenda, I still often gave him the benefit of the doubt when he had a point. Mahjongg (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK Cool. I just thought that in case he had a problem that something about his fair edits hadn't been mentioned, at least it has :) Chocobogamer (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read through the RfC to try to get into this stuff, and the above seems like a pretty fair solution. But maybe, for a bit, keep trying to explain to Wageslave why his edits are off NPOV. Maybe I'll put in an outside view one of these days. Emil Kastberg (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be good actually. Also, all members who have raised their concerns have tried reasoning with him. Chocobogamer (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this will only work if Wageslave realizes why people have a problem with his edits. If he doesn't then carries on, his edits will not be considered "fair" and we'll just end up back here, either with the same people or new ones complaining. Howevere I am in favor of this idea. John  .n-  IRL  16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats where I thought we could have a problem, thats why I suggested the threat of a lifetime ban should he admit but then do it again, or if he refuses to admit, then we proceed to it immediately. Chocobogamer (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why editors like me who were involved with him should be punished as well. I didn’t anything wrong and I am not being accused of doing anything wrong. I don’t want to forfeit my right just to make a resolution easier to come by. --8bitJake (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that, the previous one was, the only thing I'm saying is we can't be picky about his edits. This proposal is purely regarding Wageslave. Chocobogamer (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno why, but Wageslave seems to be ignoring this page altogether. I believe this proposal I have made has enough backing to take this directly to Wageslave, and if he refutes, to take it further. I feel its about time something is done either way rather than just talking about it.

Does anyone disagree that its time to start sorting this out once and for all? Chocobogamer (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, im afraid he thinks this will all go away if its ignored. John  .n-  IRL  00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah if a resolution isn't reached, RFC's are closed after 30 days aren't they? So I agree we should take this further. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Mahjongg (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, most ppl agree, so does someone know how to move it on? Can someone start it? Sorry, I don't know how to or I would. Thanks Chocobogamer (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not 100% certain how to go about it, but, we should probably bring this to the attention of one or more admins. Does anyone know of any admins that are involved with one of the videogame projects? Otehrwise we'll have to try to get an outside admin to enforce this. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know if there are any in the vg project, however it may be better to request assistance from an admin who usually handles user disputes and is also not connected with the vg project. On the same note they may say to wait for a response from Wagslave, without a reply to the new resolution it may be hard to take this further. John  .n-  IRL  05:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. But if he doesn't respond, and no action is taken, and this RFC gets auto-closed, he may see that as an approval of his actions and will just continue to do as before. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Ill request assistance from an admin if you like, I have some free time now. We may have to bring this to wp:rfar? John  .n-  IRL  06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the dispute is big enough to go to ArbCom - at least not yet. ArbCom is a last resort for dispute resolution if all else fails, so I think we should try to enforce what we've come up with here first. I mean, we've all pretty much agreed on everything already, so all we need is an admin or two to enforce the restrictions on Wageslave. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the process and continue with disruptive edits will close their coffin quickly. We're tried to resolve the issue and he just ignored and confused the process not responding here. It's all reported and archived here. --Ciao 90 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this needs be taken further. But I thought this was like a Request for Comment from an Administrator? Which is clearly not the case until we... contact one, yeah, of course. —  Emil K.  (talk''' 10:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we need an administrator to look at this, preferably one with a measure of knowledge about the subject, otherwise this was all just nothing more than a test to see if we all agree about the nature of Wageslaves edits, I think we have at least proven we do. Still we did not do this just for that, but to stop him doing it. Mahjongg (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To all, I'm not ignoring the situation. I'm just really not interested in being the whipping boy any longer. I dont come here to do anything except improve wikipedia. I'm not interested in fighting about this any more.

I've already stopped editing almost completely.

Wageslave (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If thats supposed to be a call for the sympathy vote, its not worked for me. There is a simple way to stop being the whipping boy - admit you've made fanboy edits, you must surely know they are, and agree not to do it again, which isn't hard - just don't obscure or argue facts or cited material. Look, if you can't admit that, I think things will carry on regardless of your lack of editing, but people will go for permanent blocks. This will probably sound personal, but its not: just have a bit of maturity and admit to your faults, don't do them again, continue editing (without controversy) and prove yourself a good wikipedian :) Chocobogamer (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

soo, wats the latest, guys? Chocobogamer (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who knows. I always thought there were admins who oversaw all RFC's and were the ones to have to come to a decision over the matter. But since that doesn't seem to be the case, I really have no idea what is meant to happen now. I guess we could ask for advice on WP:AN/I. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * hmm :S well we need to do something or this page will expire and we'll be no better off for it. Chocobogamer (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably prudent to make a copy of this page, and the project page, before they disappear. Mahjongg (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think its sad that we are this far into this pointless discussion. The only biased edits were the ones that he previously changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvferret (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe that he was neutralising biased edits then I wonder if you reckon that neutrality is being pro-Microsoft. The evidence speaks for itself and whether you or he reckon its clever editing or whatever crap you say, the mods will look at every edit he has made and decide if overall his edits have been biased. Wageslave himself welcomes it as he believes he's done no wrong. so lets just let the jury decide once and for all! why is this the first time you have commented on a solution that has been up for 16 days? why do I get the feeling you personally know Wageslave? As I said the evidence shown speaks for itself. You cannot deny thia. Chocobogamer (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No wonder Dvferret thinks Wageslave is doing a good job with his pro-Microsoft edits. Take a look at this edit where Dvferret removes an entire criticisms section on Microsoft PowerPoint. Yes, criticisms sections are discouraged but criticisms should be incorporated into the article. In that particular edit, Dvferret just deletes the entire section, not incorporating any of the information into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Update
Ok, so I've asked for advice about this case at WP:AN/I and here is the response:-


 * "RfC is a community thing, not a quasi-court presided over by admins. The purpose of an RfC is to correct the editing behaviour of an editor or editors, if that behaviour is disruptive or without Wikipedia norms. In this case, the user hasn't accepted the results of your RfC, but has announced they won't be editing (or won't be editing in that area any more). Therefore the RfC has ended and you have the result you required. If you were seeking punishment for the editor, you're not going to get that from anyone here. So I'd suggest letting the RfC lapse at this point. The RfC can be reopened should the problem reoccur. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

So basically, we just leave the RFC for now, and if it gets closed, it gets closed. Should Wageslave come back and make the same edits, the RFC can be re-opened and this evidence as well as new evidence can be used. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this accomplished nothing then, I give it a month before someone at least reverts an edit of his because of its nonsense. Chocobogamer (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well at least every body mellowed out. --8bitJake (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)