A group of positive POV editors (on various topics) have begun a campaign of harassment in order that they can continue to dominate and own certain articles in a positive-POV manner. They have resisted any attempt at including a balance of opinion. Clearly, the "intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely".

This campaign's method includes wikistalking, threats, user space harassment, personal attacks amongst other acts of harassment for the purpose of maintaining ownership of articles in a positive-POV manner.

Please review the "Case Against wageslave" here, where if you actually review the claims, you'll find are a wholesale misrepresentation of my edits: User:Frvernchanezzz/Wageslave case

Some editors and I have managed to work effectively together, and work to resolve conflict and work together. You'll see me reaching out to 8bitJake here.

Another, Xenocidic and I had a nice discussion on these matters, you can find them here

Some editors below are more directly involved in the efforts led here by Frvernchanezzz, while I believe others are acting in good faith. Of the former group, if you review their edits, could have (at least) the same "trumped-up" charges brought against them as well.

I however don’t have the time or inclination to harass, wiki-stalk or track other editors; I have tried to keep discussion in the talk page material, on-topic and clear. I've tried to avoid (in the face of many [WP:PA] attacks many examples can be found here and here) making attacks against editors directly.

No editor is without a personal point of view, it just happens that my POV view is different than a certain group here - hence this effort to attack and silence me.

(Note; I've made no effort to spell-check, my apologies, I'm a terrible speller.)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. 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: 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• Wageslave (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Wageslave (talk · contribs) 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 consensus in the talk pages, you'll find I've done very little "edit warring" whereby I revert changes to the articles, instead 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)

False. I've found that that you have engaged heavily in edit warring. You also do not address consensus on the talk page - quite the contrary; you go against the consensus, hence this RFC. You would do well to read this.

I don’t mean a secret conspiracy. Would you be happy If I used "group"? Wageslave (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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 some 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)

This RFC is far from being about two articles, as it can be clearly seen. The other involved editors are more neutral than Wageslave, and most, if not all, of them, gain consensus before making major revisions. Also please see WP:POINT.

I am not certain that their is any point for me to continue to edit wikipedia articles. I suspect that the harassment and wikistalking will continue, and I have no desire to spend volunteer time defending. It has taken me some time to decide if mounting this "defence" was even worthwhile, as I'm confident that anyone who has the will and effort to so blatantly mis-represent my edits (see below) will not be satisfied If I some-how managed to avoid some kind of "punishment".

I think I have illustrated quite clearly below that this "case" is in-fact, about those two articles. It happens that I presented -- material that should be included beyond a shadow of a doubt -- and revealed that the articles were being maintained in a Positive-POV manner. The characterization of the other edits -- with the exception of a few that I may have been less than diligent with -- is total fiction. I invite people to read them on a case-by-case basis.

So, my proposal is this: I will take a break from editing the articles MGS4 (and sub-pages) and PS3 for some period of time (you suggest). That doesn’t mean that I wont participate on their talk pages.

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" purpose, based on Frvernchanezzz's opinion is invention. My "purpose" is clarity, neutrality and completeness.

True. As it can be seen from your edit's, your 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 articles. This is not a fabrication, as it can easily be gathered from looking at your contributions. You have never shown any neutrality at all.

As I amply demonstrate below, your characterization of my edits is fiction. Wageslave (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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 "project" owns any article on Wikipedia. Strongsauce's argument is wholly moot, and a violation of wp:agf and wp:pa. Joining the collection 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)

While no project owns an article, it is questionable whether or not your intentions were good, when considering the fact that you belonged solely to the Xbox project and you go around attacking Nintendo, Sony and Apple articles. Here you state that you joined the projects not to improve articles related to them, but to "render an attack moot". Strongsauce did not "attack" you - he merely pointed out the conflict of interest. The fact that you joined two projects for the sole purpose of "defeating" another editor, rather than improve articles related to them means that you yet again disrupted Wikipedia to make a point.

My edits stand on their merits, as individuals -- I invite 3rd parties to review them and ask themselves, based on the edit, and wageslave's rebuttal; "Is Frvernchanezzz's description accurate"? You will find they are not. Please don’t be so presumptuous about guessing what I think. Wageslave (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

How creating a POV fork of an existing article is considered "reasonable" is beyond me.

As I said, I used a current article as a construct for the new page. Articles that cover the same topic have a similar form, so I used a current page to construct the new one. Wageslave (talk) 01:07, 1 May 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.

Citations, yes. Reliable sources, no.

You say "as the replacing of the HDD does not void the warranty" but the citation said otherwise.

As I said, if you used a reliable source, (like, say Sony's official website, or even looked at a PS3 manual), you would have found that it doesn't void the warranty.

You say "regardless of how inferior the PSN is to Xbox LIVE, this is not a technical/hardware issue with the console." Why do you presume "technical problems" must mean hardware? It is a "technical problem" discussed widely, did the citation or language say otherwise?

I didn't presume it only meant hardware. "Technical issues" as a term means that a product (hardware or software) doesn't work as intended; thus the RRoD of Xbox 360's is a technical issue, but the inferiority of the PSN isn't as it works exactly as intended.

Wageslave (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

The source is not "dubious". It was this QJ.net] article. It was referencing this article from Surfer Girl who is a well known source of insider game information (and is directly sourced on wikipedia here, here, here at least) and her insight is widely reported. As was the case with this particular rumour, many sources reported her insight (here, here, andhere).

Since when is Surfer Girl considered reliable? Last I checked, she only reports rumours, and a lot of the time she is wrong. By Wikipedia's standards, Surfer Girls shouldn't be used (and yes that does mean removal from those articles). And as you stated above, this is all rumour.

Oh Surfer Girl is considered a reliable source but the work I have done on my Seattle PI site is "Blog Troll" work?!?--8bitJake (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tekken 5 - Added another criticism section with dubious source. Then added his own OR criticism.

The source is not "dubious", it is [1] which is the online publishing arm of Canada's Quebecor publishing group. Canoe.ca is a well respected site as is Quebecor.

Secondly, the claim that I "added his own OR is just false. To quote from the review I added, "And what is really disappointing to me is that despite the fact that the PS3 is so integrated with the Internet, even in this game the manual and gallery content is online, it fails to have any playable online content. I would love to play an old school fighting game against other people on the Net. Especially, Tekken. They could hold the King of Iron Fist Tournament for real, or for virtual real at least. Then the ranking system and customized costumes would actually serve a purpose. But, alas, alack, there's no such thing here. It's just the same-old same-old with no real innovation. (You claim is OR - it is not)

Wrong. The source you used isn't at all reputable. Furthermore, you only had one source, stating an opinion. And yes you did add OR - you added But, alas, alack, there's no such thing here. It's just the same-old same-old with no real innovation - this is your opinion; you did not add a citation or anything of the sort.

canoe.ca not reputable? Tell that to the nation of Canada, its read religiously. You're being absurd.

Did you read the source? Please re-read what I've written above, But, alas, alack, there's no such thing here. It's just the same-old same-old with no real innovation. it is the sentence that I added.

You are repeating what is clear and demonstratably false it is not OR, it is what is written in the citation.

— Emil K. ^{(talk|contribs)} Wageslave, this is ridiculous. Regardless of what the source said, you do not present opinions with that kind of wording. Reception of a product is obviously a disputed topic which cannot represent any single opinion, as foremost stated in the first sub-section of Explanation of the NPOV.

If you'd like to point out one reviewer's opinion of a game, you should state what they thought was wrong with the game and not what their conclusion was. And most importantly, of course, that this is one reviewer's opinion.

• FlOw - added another criticism section, citing a non notable, dubious source.

Pure Magazine UK said "While flOw does offer some different gaming experiences and the implementation of the Sixaxis is smooth, it does just feel like a demo of the controller and not exactly a fully rounded game. [May 2007, p.67]"

Hardcore Gamer Magazine "As-is, it's a very, very pretty demo of what the SIXAXIS can do. [May 2007, p.69]"

Here it says "It's cheap, it's easy, there’s no death, severed limbs or even blood, it's great for wowing hammered friends with a motion sensitive controller. In fact, it's simply ornamental."

The game has 7.1/10 "Mixed or Average Reviews" according to Metacritic. The passage I included "not a game that is overly complex and may not appeal to everyone" (and cited) pretty much falls in-line.

The site is non notable and dubious. And you wrote in an overtly POV manner.

What about the other two articles that say much the same thing? Wageslave (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Calling All Cars! - Adds another criticism section. Changes the neutral "cell shaded" to the Negative POV "simple"

No, it was a "Controversy" section, and it included the widely reported comments from David Jaffee (the Game's Designer). Jaffee said (to his reviewers) "you can go f*** yourselves" and provided the citations to gamedaily.com and joystiq.com. Jaffee's *own* controversial comments certainly deserve inclusion do they not? And, calling it "Cell Shaded" is inaccurate -- not "neg POV" -- accurate. There are two good examples on the article about cell shading [2] that show why I say that. The particle/light effects in Calling all Cars! does not "feel like that of hand-drawn animation".

Even if you call a dog a cat, it is still a dog. This is a criticism section and these sections are frowned upon. You wrote in a POV manner, and did not even attempt to integrate into the article.

• Dark Sector - He adds one source, to try to make the PS3 seem less capable than the 360 in the graphics department.

What did I add? "In discussions with ArsTechnica, the developers were "a little surprised, that they were able to get the PS3 version looking as good the Xbox 360 title."[3]" So, in an interview with the game's own developers with another respected site (ArsTechnica) -- what could possibly be wrong with that? Your commentary "try to make the PS3 seem less capable" is the opinion of the developers. This being included here is a perfect example of why this process is taking place, this wikipedian wants to maintain a POSITIVE POV of PS3 topics and resents the inclusion of anything that threatens that.

This being included here actually is a perfect example of how Wikipedians wish to maintain a negative bias towards the PS3.

• 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.

The Game's Publisher said that it was being made for "next gen systems". Go and read the article. The citation that I've included is from a journalist at [4] who was "The spokesperson suggested that both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 releases are likely, stating, "LA Noire is being developed for next-generation systems.". Your SECOND link is the talk page where you'll see I elucidate the point, its clear "next gen systems" comes directly from the publisher. It is not speculation, but from the publisher himself.

First off, publisher isn't the developer. Second, the publisher "suggested" that it "may" come to another next-gen system. So yes, this is all rumour, hearsay and what-not.

Debating publisher vs. developer is utterly pointless. Secondly, it is clear as day what the publisher directly tells our reporter -- its not a "rumour" when the game's publisher, tells a reporter something directly. Wageslave (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably also worthy of note here is that after Frvernchanezzz removed the gamesindustry.biz citation, I contacted him and tried to help him understand the situation, yet he still mischaracterizes it here. Wageslave (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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".

"To try to "counter" the Xbox 360 technical problems article" speculation.

Not speculation. Fact - by looking at your contributions, hence the RFC.

So, the mere presence of this RFC is proof that you can read my mind? Wageslave (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"about a code of error, that isn't widely reported, isn't widespread," it is widespread enough to have been covered by the 4 sources I provided.

Again see WP:RS. The "sources" you quoted were reporting using anecdotal evidence. And since this isn't being covered recently, the nit obviously isn't widespread (some anecdotal evidence of my own.)

"falls well within the normal range for electronics" your own positive-POV apology and speculation.

On the talk page I added a source with PC World - a highly reputable source - stating that it "falls well within the normal range for electronics". Not OR, and definitely NPOV.

Here you claim "PC World" is a highly reputable source, but below, you claim "Computerworld" is "the worst source ever" -- they are BOTH owned by IDG. So all your sources are "highly reputable" when I use a sister publication, it becomes "the worst source ever". You've pull this kind of nonsense all over the article, you've called almost every source I used "dubious" when most are rock-solid and iron-clad quality. Wageslave (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"[5] He then makes a huge fanboy statement." teamxbox.com is a property of ign.com, they are used as a source all over wikipedia. The alternate to "teamxbox.com" is ps3.ign.com. PS3.ign.com is widely used as a source on Wikipedia. IGN (and its properties) are used everywhere; "teamxbox.com" is under the editorial control (and banner) of IGN.com. "then he makes a huge fanboy statement" is ridiculous, I made NO statement other than to quote IGN's website.

Also note that these edits are on the talk page.

Talk pages are subject to the same standards as articles. Also yes you did make the biggest fanboy statement (i.e., "interestingly the PS forums are closed at the time of this report"). Teamxbox.com cannot be used as a source for articles unrelated to Xbox. If it came directly from IGN or from the PS3 branch of IGN, then yes. But the journalists who write for teamxbox have no clue when it comes to other topics.

• Even though there are sources within the next few paragraphs, Wageslave insists that the PS3 isn't getting any favourable reviews.

I in no way said "PS3 isn’t getting any favorable reviews. I said nothing of the sort, whatsoever.

You didn't say it, but you implied it.

What I did do was add a ^{[citation needed]} tag to this OR: "However, after a series of price drops and the release of several quality titles, the system has begun to receive better reviews". Why? Because it is OR and speculation. That statement "price drops and quality titles" caused "better reviews" seems like it may need support. Did the "price drops" cause better reviews? Did the "quality titles" cause better reviews? How about a source to say the reviews have "changed"?

Firstly, it wasn't OR. Secondly it didn't need a citation after that sentence, as in the next few paragraphs there are sources stating the favourable reviews it has received of late.

By adding ^{[citation needed]} I am not, in any-way saying "PS3 isn't getting any favorable reviews"' that is an absolute mistruth.

By adding the "fact" tag, you are definitely implying that, since you are basically stating "unless you can find a source that explicitly states that price drops and good games caused it to get better reviews, then it has no good reviews".

I will counter that my accuser objects to the ^{[citation needed]} request because it questions a sympathetic speculation, an unsourced statement with clearly positive-POV.

I stand by the accusation that you added the tag as an attempt to create a negative bias on yet another article.

• He denies something as blatantly obvious as the chrome trim on the PS3.As above.

Blatantly obvious that it is silver, not that it is chromium plated metal. Sorry, again, is it to much to ask for citations for the claims? Here is what Frvernchanezzz had to say about my wanting a citation; "Sorry dude, but the onus is on you to find 100% verifiable proof that is in fact not a chrome finish. And no, your "personal inspection" is not even close to being good enough" [6] which speaks for itself...

No, it's blatantly obvious that it is chrome. It most certainly isn't the mineral silver, isn't silver plated, and isn't silver colored - it is chrome. And I said what I did because you are the one who wanted to change something, so you were the one who need to bring sources to the table, instead of using "your own personal inspection" (which is exactly the evidence you used). It boggles the mind that you would go so far and nitpick something this small just to make a point and cast the PS3 in a negative light.

• Wageslave wants to remove all mention of the PS3 outselling the 360 from the article, even though it is entirely relevant.

False, what did I actually say "Do you think Xbox 360 sales are relevant to this article? Details of the hardware shortage and the resulting Xbox 360 sales slow-down are probably properly documented elsewhere, it wouldn’t seem to be in the scope of this article would it?" was my response to this " think it should be clear that so far the PS3 had consistently sold more than the Xbox 360" -- seems a little odd don’t you think? With the Xbox 360 in very short supply, the PS3 outsold it briefly. It is not "clear that so far the PS3 had consistently sold more than Xbox 360" unless it says "think it should be clear that so far the PS3 had consistently sold more than the Xbox 360 while the Xbox 360 was in a supply shortage worldwide". My response was in-context to the "clear that so far..." statement, and while relevant, my request was suggesting proper context, not the false depiction suggested by "201.248.250.105".

Again, this takes place on the talk page.

Talk pages are subject to the same standards as articles. First off, there was and is no evidence of a shortage of Xbox 360's. Secondly, Microsoft stated that they are having shortages AFTER it was seen that the PS3 outsold it, and after Christmas (conflict of interest?). Thirdly, the PS3 has been outselling the Xbox 360 worldwide before the supposed "shortages" started. And finally, you yourself like to tout the PS3's low sales - as did everyone else for a while, so it is not unreasonable to have a few sentences stating that the "low selling" PS3 is now outselling it's nearest rival - especially in the "sales" section of the article.

• 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.

I find it unbelievable to say that Kojima, Newell, Carmack and Wired.com should not be included. You're identifying these luminaries as "not noteworthy, dubious biased, OR" is just outright fiction. They most certainly should be included -- but the objection is being maintained in order to enforce the Positive-POV embargo on the PS3 article. And that is why I am here defending every single edit I've ever made, because that cabal wants to harass me enough to quit editing because I dared to challenge their hegemony and rule over a collection of articles.

You misquoted and misinterpreted sources to construct a negative bias. You also really need to stop accusing a "cabal" of running everything. See WP:TINC.

• Insists on linking PS articles to Xbox ones, even though they aren't in any way related.

A completely acceptable and worthwhile edit. They *are* related -- according to the edit Cmsjustin made on Geometry Wars. While reading the article on Geometry Wars, I saw "Blast Factor in the See Also] section of Geometry Wars. So, I added the return link from Blast Factor to "See Also" Geometry Wars.

BTW, it was user Cmsjustin that added "See Also: Blast Factor" to Geometry Wars in 2006. [7]

I added "See Also: Geometry Wars" to Blast Factor [8] using his methodology.

"Monkey see, monkey do" is not a valid defence. He was in the wrong and so were you.

• Same as above.

Yes, the same acceptable editing just like above, on totally related articles. On the Xbox LIVE Arcade game list page, their is a link to List of PSN games.

Yes the same unacceptable thing as above.

• 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".

Here we arrive at the real trouble here. In no way whatsoever, did I "misquote" or "misinterpret" the source.

Actually you did.

Title: Kojima Disappointed With Metal Gear Solid 4 where Kojima says:

Game-wise, it's pretty close to the original vision: you sneak into the battlefield and can choose whether to do a stealth game or interfere with the battle more directly. But the graphic, side things like motion-blending and the size of the map, totally was not accomplished to my original vision - to my satisfaction

When we first showed the game engine at TGS, the staff were really proud and happy. PS3 was a dream machine, y'know, and we were going to work on this and that - and we had so many ideas. But when we actually started developing the game, we realized there were a lot of restrictions and so it turned out how you see it today. The original vision was to go ten steps further, the reality was just one step, which isn't to say we didn't progress.

I remember saying three years ago that we wanted to create something revolutionary, but in reality we couldn't really do that because of the CPU. We're using the Cell engine to its limit., actually. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the PS3 machine, it's just that we weren't really aware of what the full-spec PS3 offered - we were creating something we couldn't entirely see.

This is what I added to the article;

In the UK's Edge magazine Kojima expressed disappointment in the final result of the game graphics and his inability to realize his early intent. Kojima says of the PS3 "But when we actually started developing the game, we realized there were a lot of restrictions and so it turned out how you see it today." and "we wanted to create something revolutionary, but in reality we couldn't really do that because of the CPU. We're using the Cell engine to its limit., actually." while being careful not to directly criticize the development environment by saying " Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the PS3 machine, it's just that we weren't really aware of what the full-spec PS3 offered".

To begin, I did not "misquote" or "misinterpret" at all. It is clear as day exactly has told us, and my summary of his comments are dead accurate.

You've volunteered you're apology for his statement, but none is needed - he said what he said, saying "he's a well known..." is ridiculous - you're doing damage control. In fact I would say that it is much more well know in the Japanese character and culture that this is very damning language for Kojima to say about his own business partner. If we had a wikipedian who maintains the pages on Japanese business culture, I'm thinking he might no be so quick to smile and dismiss what Kojima is saying here.

Kojima's commentary belong in a Criticism/Reception section because he is discussing the final product of the game.

Wrong. You misquoted and misinterpreted Kojima's remarks. He didn't even criticize the game at all if you read it properly - he merely said it didn't meet his initial (from 2004 or whatever) vision for the game. You could say he criticized the PS3 itself, but then he goes on to say that he isn't criticizing the machine, but he misjudged the power of it.

• 18:08, 18 April 2008; I add the Kojima's comments to a Criticism section [9].
• 18:25, 18 April 2008; Eaglestorm fixes some typos; [10]
• 18:44, 18 April 2008; 76.181.95.111 totally removes the paragraph saying "Removing this for now. The game hasn't been released yet, so lets wait to post any potential criticisms for then. Plus, Kojima's remarks could have easily been chalked up to pre-release hype" [11]
• 18:46, 18 April 2008; I restore them saying "Kojima said those things, chalk them up to "direct quote from kojima"[12]
• 18:53, 18 April 2008; HitotsuOne removes them without comment [13].
• 19:20, 18 April 2008; John.n-irl removes mention of the beta failure [14]
• 19:24, 18 April 2008; I restore criticism section. [15]
• 20:07, 18 April 2008; HitotsuOne removes it (2nd time now, perhaps 3rd if he was 76.181.95.111[16]) [17]
• 21:05, 18 April 2008; removed now by "159.134.165.178" [18]
• 22:38, 18 April 2008; I restore it from vandalism again [19]

* Re-adds criticism section.

And, that is the 22:38 edit above. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Umm, criticism sections are frowned upon. Worthwhile criticisms are integrated into the article. Also you misquoted/misinterpreted etc. Also you re-added it after consensus was rightfully reached that it doesn't belong.

• Adds another criticism section.

And what is wrong with it? Nothing at all; I provide 9 different citations, clearly broken down by issue to explain the situation. All the material is relevant, well cited and notable.

Jesus man, haven't you read WP:CRITICISM by now? Criticism sections are a POV troll magnet and are unacceptable - that's what's wrong with it. Furthermore you again misquoted and misinterpreted.

• Tries to convince people that this isn't a game - when it clearly is.

The further we get here, the more inaccurate and lazy the accusations get. I corrected this sentence; "MGO is a forthcoming online spin-off of the Metal Gear series produced by Konami" to "is a forthcoming feature of Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots MGS4 produced by Konami"

The first error is obvious, the game is not a online MMO. It is an online feature of MGS4.

It is discussed here.

Wrong. This is a game in it's own right, as Konami, Kojima and Sony have all stated. This just seems like an attempt on your part to try to reinforce the "LULZ PS3 has no games" argument that trolls such as yourself love to use.

The second error is that the game is not a spin-off.

It is discussed here

To that error, I said;

The first sentence reads; "is a forthcoming online spin-off". In the context of products (which this is), it means "A spin-off-product, is a product deriving elements of design , branding or function from an existing product, but which is itself a new distinct product. MGS4's online multiplayer is not a "new distinct product", it is included as a feature with MGS4. I believe the sentence should be corrected to read: "is a forthcoming online feature" or "element" or "game-type" or some such.

And, how does the first sentence read now? It says "spin-off" -- which is wrong, I know better than to try and edit it, as it will be instantly descended upon.

The main series is Metal Gear. This game, Metal Gear Online, is a spin-off of it, therefore it is a spin-off game. Simple.

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).

Should pack in games be included in best-sellers lists? Discussion on the talk page thinks otherwise too. Perhaps I edited before discussing, but I would easily argue that a list that mixes pack-in and retail-titles isn’t much value. Also, there are games that are packed-in that aren’t accounted for. That page is wholly inaccurate as a result. I'll concede that I should have discussed that edit.

Bundled games are still sold games, are they not? And actually if you read the talk page, the consensus is that bundled games should be included. Occasionally an anonymous Sony fanboy or Xbox fanboy will bring it up because of ego reasons.

• 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".

First off, In no way at all does "Xbox 360 and Wii's console sales" have to do with my edit (as you falsely imply). That is totally made-up on your part, from your imagination.

Judging from your pattern editing, 360 and Wii sales are related to this edit.

Further, *I* don’t imply anything at all, I add mention that 1up.com included Wii as its "10 biggest failures of 2007" and provide his comment. It is worthwhile and notable. The Wii article is in need of a balance of opinion. That editor is from a worthwhile publication. And it represents a remark made by others as well.

You do indeed imply that the Wii is a failure. You used a biased source to add your biased opinion to an article. And who are these "others" you speak of? Why weren't there enough "others s you could add another source?

• Cherry picks his words and sources to try to construct a negative view on Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

More false accusations, I didn’t "construct a negative view on SSBB". I added a notable source and comment to provide balance. Go and read the reception section, there isn’t a single non-praise statement. That is cherry-picking.

You added a non notable source. And stop with your "balance" bullshit, it's a pathetic excuse for trolling. The game was universally praised - that was why you didn't see many criticisms in the reception. Not because a Nintendo cabal rules the page.

• Re-inserts a negative POV rant that was removed from the article numerous times.

Yes, again, a totally worthwhile edit. Originally added here by just64helpin on March 11, then removed by Dkechag almost a week later. And then I restore it.

Completely worthless edit. You re-added POV drivel to an article that had previously been removed, and has since been removed again. That hardly qualifies as worthwhile.

• 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.

The story in question citation is broken. But to make those claims, a Doctor would need to make the claim that Wii is a medical device.

Editors wanted to include claims of Health Benefits by the use of Wii. Here is exactly what I said on the talk page;

I believe it should not be included. It seems spurious. The claims are mostly Pos-POV, mostly arisen from marketing. Honestly claiming that these devices are being used for physiotherapy or in a clinical situations seems extraordinary. Making claims w/r/t healthcare by regular-videogame editors should be undertaken cautiously. Perhaps this claim should be included in articles about elder-care to see review by editors more experienced in that subject.

Perhaps a link to a clinical study may have been worthwhile, but taking marketing claims and making them medical claims is ridiculous. Who wants wikipedia videogame editors adding medical claims to videogame articles? The way my edit is described is more made-up fiction. Video-games being used to "Cheer-up" sick people isn’t the question.

If you've seen the news about the Wii on television in recent months, you'll see that doctors are using it in hospitals. But yeah, I'm willing to grant that the claim didn't have a worthy source to back it up.

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.

Totally incorrect characterization of my edits. Almost to the point of tragic comedy.

Not even worth responding to this poor excuse for an argument.

"Adds a section" Did not add a "section", added a sentence.

You added a section. Notice how you created a "header"?

"cast Apple", the subject of the sentence was "Defenders of Apple's security" not Apple.

Nitpicking at it's finest. Maybe Apple were on of the defendants of their security? Either way, it definitely cast Apple in a negative light.

"while using the worst source ever." Why is Computerworld, owned by IDG [20] the 50 Year old publisher of IT material "the worst source ever"? This is one of the MOST respected IT publishing firms on the planet responsible for many print materials and many online properties.

Do you have a source for your claims that this firm (which no one has heard of, much less quotes from) is one of the best sources, or even a good source?

Regarding the second claim;

It may be necessary to understand how Unix works, but the only way to have "complete control" of UNIX is to have access to the root account. And, when you have access to root, you "completely control the device", hence my edit. Again, my edit is a total improvement of the article in both clarity and accuracy.

No, just no. Your defences get weaker as we go.

• Here it seems he doesn't want anyone to know about Intel's relationship with Apple. He then threatens to unilaterally remove the information.

You say "Here] it seems he doesn't want anyone to know about Intel's relationship with Apple."

On the talk page, I said "Why is there a partnership with apple section? There is nothing noteworthy for Intel about selling to Apple. There is no "partnership" any more than Intel has with Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo or HP." Meaning "Hey, Intel sells more chips to others not discussed, what is the purpose?" In no way am I saying "I don’t want anyone to know about Intel's relationship with Apple", its simply not noteworthy in this context or to the extend described. Certainly not without describing the VASTLY larger relationship they have with more than half-a-dozen other hardware vendors.

Intel's relationship with Apple was worth mentioning. For some reason you wanted it gone, without justification.

You say "threatens to unilaterally remove the information."

On the talk page, I said "Unless good reasons not to, I will remove this section shortly." Meaning "Hey, lets discuss it, if no one has good reasons, I'll edit it out later".

What is the problem -- at all -- with that? I’m asking the other editors to discuss the change with me before I make it, and tell them what I want to do. What on earth is wrong with this?

Wrong. After wanting this section removed, you did then threaten to unilaterally (i.e., do it on your own without the support of others) remove it. Going against the consensus is not the way Wikipedia works.

• iTunes - he proposes to add another criticism section (yes, you guessed it), then goes ahead and starts doing it.

The BBC article titled "'Personal data' in iTunes tracks: The launch of music tracks free of digital locks on iTunes has been overshadowed by the discovery that they contain data about who bought them."

The ArsTechnica article is titled "Apple hides account info in DRM-free music, too"

Should that commentary not be included? On the talk page, I suggest a criticism section -- thinking it correct form at the time.

The second edit shows me making corrections of fact based on the above, again, I didn’t add a new section as you incorrectly claim.

Read, and re-read WP:CRITICISM. Criticism sections are not allowed since they are a POV troll magnet. Any worthwhile criticisms are integrated into the article. An yes, you did add in more criticisms - just as I said.

• Removes any mention of Mac OS X, seemingly to promote Microsoft Windows.

Open Directory is a brand-name for the LDAP server Apple ships. In fact, as the article states "Open Directory describes a shared LDAPv3 directory domain based on OpenLDAP". Windows Server isn’t really related exactly; actually, Active Directory would be the analogue to LDAP.

The opening sentence is more accurate in fact and clear in context after my edit.

• Removes mentions of Mac OS.

Running OSX in a Virtual Machine would violate the TOS of MacOSX (which permits you to run it on Apple hardware only). While you may run OSX in Microsoft Virtual PC, it would be illegal. That is why I changed it to another UNIX, GNN/Linux, who's license permits you to run it in the manner described.

No that isn't why you changed it. You just don't like mention of a Microsoft competitor.

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.

Do you see any citations here? Yes, saying "oh, lets add a section so we can add blah blah blah" is trolling.

No, what you've been doing is trolling. And then when someone wants to criticize the 360, you won't have any of it. Hypocrisy.

• 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

Click here please That is 1/2 of "well sourced" (that was the MSNBC source).

Applematters.com thinks that MS is trying to fool people because customers cant do grade school math?

What did I remove: "It has been speculated that the cost of Microsoft Points was deliberately chosen in order to disguise the true price of items. Rather than calculating the true cost, users may mentally equate 100 Points to $1.00 USD, despite the fact that points actually cost slightly more than a penny each. For example, the Zune Marketplace price of 79 Points per song may convey the impression it is somehow cheaper than the actual price of 99 cents"

That was only supported by applematters.com.

Just to note, Microsoft Points also are used to purchase items on Xbox LIVE Marketplace. It is prima facie absurd to say that they chose the prices to confuse Zune customers. [21]

What did you remove? How about the huge paragraph of well written well sourced information that was once there.

• Again removes a HUGE sections that is also accurate, well written, and well sourced - from the Washington Post, among others.

Two sources. Two claims. Neither "well sourced" or "among others" (among a group of one).

Both were well sourced. It's just that the sources don't agree with your POV.

Claim One: "Since Microsoft Points are only sold in fixed allotments, the customer generally has to pay for surplus, unwanted Points, in order to make a purchase"

WSJ is not Washington Post

No one said Wall Street Journal was Washington Post. The other source was this, which, correct me if I'm wrong, IS the Washington Post.

Walt Mossberg is the citation for this claim. Of Mossberg; "In recent years his bias towards Apple products has become increasingly vocal, praising them wherever possible, even in answers to unrelated Windows/PC questions from readers"[22]

Using a Wikipedia article to source your argument is flawed, as that claim from his article is an attempt at POV editing. It should be removed according to WP:BLP.

Claim Two: "While more a complaint related to the content than to the Marketplace itself, the pricing scheme for content is not always consistent. As a result, users sometimes feel that they are being asked to pay more than a fair value for a given piece of content (e.g. 200 Points for a purely cosmetic in-game item)"

Has nothing to do with MS Points at all. It is a non-sequitor critique of the value of some content - not related to Microsoft Points in any direct way. It would be like including a discussion on the value of [toilet paper] on the page about the Chinese Yuan

Your analogy is wrong and so is your argument. It has everything to do with MS points, since you are buying content using MS points, and when those MS points are converted back into dollars (the dollars you used to get those points), then you are actually paying more than it's worth.

• On 360 articles, Wageslave doesn't feel blogs can be used as sources - but on PS/Nintendo articles he uses them all the time.

This claim is so outlandish I cannot approach its meaning.

This claim in a nutshell. "I, Wageslave, am allowed to use unreputable and untrustworthy blogs as sources when I am vandalising Sony, Nintendo and Apple articles; but no one is to use blogs of any sort when referring to the criticisms of Microsoft products/services".

He had issues with major gaming news blogs but is happy enough to cite Surfer Girl if it anti-PS3 stuff. --8bitJake (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Removes valid points that are well sourced without rationale.

Valid points? Cheaters, thieves and hackers are banned from LIVE for violating the service's TOS. The "valid points" you describe are delusional, irrational attacks and smears. The (ridiculous) claims (that you call "valid points" and "sourced") weren’t supported by the citations at all.

So how is it not a valid point to state that cheaters, thieves and hackers are banned from LIVE? And if you bothered to read the sources, you'd see that they do support the statement made. If anything, having this information in there is promoting your pro-Microsoft POV by stating that MS deals with wrong-doers rightly.

• Another diff of removing valid, well sourced, and accurate information - [23], He then goes on to remove more sources. And again. And again.

Because it was the same drivel as above regarding defense of TOS violators

That "drivel" was worthwhile, noteworthy, well source information.

Removing youtube videos...

No, removing sources that actually show the disc scratching problems.

Yes, removed the exact nonsense passage as above Re: TOS violators

As above, that "drivel" was worthwhile, noteworthy, well source information.

Yes, removed this find insight "In addition to this, Microsoft has become known to gamers as Microshaft"

• Pretty self explanatory.

The passage reads thusly;

In addition to the regular criticism against Digital Rights Management schemes, there has been speculation that this scheme has been motivated by the fact that it would inhibit official free/open source graphics driver support by manufacturers. The scheme relies on the internals of graphics cards to tell whether the hardware is trustworthy (permitted to play copy-protected content). This could be subverted if an attacker knows certain details about the hardware's operation, which could be disclosed by hardware documentation or open source device drivers.[6]

Microsoft has frequently been accused of adding the Protected Media Path feature to Vista to block customers from copying rightfully owned media content[7] (a practice believed to be protected by Fair Use provisions of the Copyright Act), and the feature is widely quoted as an example of Microsoft's draconian adherence to Digital Rights Management (DRM). It is argued that this feature only applies to a very small segment of media files (the so called premium content).

Gutmann's "critique" is savaged by his peers

Does anyone actually believe that is an encyclopedic analysis of Protected Media Path? Yes, my adding the POV tag is very self explanatory indeed.

Indeed it was. You tag a page that you don't agree with.

• Changes "shipped" to "sold" in a POV edit. Then adds sales numbers without any source.

Sold vs. Shipped is a difficult question. To MSFT, they are sold. Its a matter of perspective.

No, it's not a matter of perspective. Units sold are completely different to units shipped. And everyone in the gaming community knows it.

Your second point is inaccurate, I'm not "adding" anything. I'm moving what already exists to an existing table. Not an "addition".

It is in fact an addition. You added "sales" numbers without any source. Clearly a POV move.

• Removes any mention of "Red Ring of Death (RRoD) - which is what the common term for the Xbox 360 general hardware failure is.

Removed redundant sentences who's only purpose are attack.

What did I remove? "known by gamers as the infamous "Red Ring of Death", "known by gamers as the infamous "Red Ring of Death" (RROD for short)." and "The name "Red Ring of Death" has caused some confusion, as the real RROD flashes three red lights" these three passages were repeated in every paragraph of the section. Simply bad editing.

Exactly. "RRoD" is the term it is known by everywhere. "General hardware failure" - it could refer to anything. "Ring of light" - more like "what the fuck". A colloquial term is appropriate if that is what it is most widely known as, asn yes, the 360's general hardware failure is most commonly known as the Red Ring of Death. Furthermore this term is sourced. See also Blue screen of death.

• Creates the illusion[24] that MS's WorldWide Telescope is praised by all.

Not "creates the illusion is praised by all".

"Dr. Roy Gould of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics said..." at the TED conference and "Michael Arrington from TechCruch reports "WorldWide Telescope will be significantly better than Google Sky" both are direct quotes.

Another example of worthwhile, accurate, notable and exceptionally sourced edits.

Exceptionally sourced?! In your dreams buddy.

• He removes criticism of Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista.

Total fabrication. This is what I added to the talk page: "It is abundantly clear that their is a POV problem with this article. I don’t have the time to re-write the article, but perhaps the more neutral editors can try and keep an eye on this article."

You cannot stand the fact that there is a whole article dedicated to the failings of Windows Vista. So you go ahead and try to convince people to "keep an eye on it" and remove all worthwhile additions (i.e., an addition that doesn't agree with your point of view).

• Here he eagerly urges editors to POV edit the article to make it seem "more positive".

More fabrication. This edit is describing my issue with the current passage and inviting other editors to improve the article. Make it "seem" more like reality.

As it can be seen from the diff, you did canvass other user to edit the article to conform to your pro-Microsoft point of view. No fabrication at all.

• Tries to incite a "witch hunt" against a user who has called him out on his POV edit warring.

More fabrication. Notifying other users that there is an editor who is adding his own blog to the article. There is a conflict of interest -- and a wikipedia policy (that I cant recall at the momement...) that is relevant here.

As I said, you tried to incite a witch hunt just because he disagrees with you.

• Removed criticism explicitly stated in the source, based on his own anecdotal evidence.

Falsehood. The source says "The game to some may seem pricey at $10 (800 Microsoft Points), but I have yet to find someone who didn’t try the demo and not buy the game immediately afterward." which means "I don’t think $10 is too much" as is incorrectly implied in the sentence I did edit.

• He removes mention of Internet Explorer's main rival, Mozilla Firefox, from this article.

The statement was unsourced.

• 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.

How do you know that? What we do know?

Just as I say in the discussion regarding that edit;

There is no evidence that machines from after the heat-fixes have problems. All reports of heat problems relate to the early machines. As evidence;

"the company conducted extensive investigations into potential sources of general hardware failures. Having identified a number of factors which can cause general hardware failures indicated by three red flashing lights on the console, Microsoft has made improvements to the console"

Therefore, it is more accurate to say "Early Xbox 360s can be subject to a number of technical problems." than "All..."

You are presuming you know what the situation is -- you don’t, and I don’t -- all we know is what comes from reputable sources on the matter.

• Uses his opinion as fact.

Amazing how willing my accuser is to misrepresent my edits. Just stunning. What have I changed?

From "nmap runs on Unix-like systems such as Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, and BSD, and also on Microsoft Windows and AmigaOS.

To "Nmap runs on Linux, Microsoft Windows, Solaris, and BSD (including OSX), and also on AmigaOS.^[1]Linux is the most popular nmap platform, and Windows the second most popular.[25]

I you bothered to read the source cited in that link right there you'll see the very first sentence where it says;

"While Nmap was once a Unix-only tool, a Windows version was released in 2000 and has since become the second most popular Nmap platform (behind Linux)"

That is why I re-ordered the list -- for accuracy. That is why I added "Linux is the most popular nmap platform, and Windows the second most popular." - a statement of pure 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 going to have egg on their faces by the end of this year.

"using the most untrustworthy source" The GDC 08 Bloggers Breakfast was widely reported, from more than that source.

"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 going to have egg on their faces by the end of this year." Do you harbour an agenda against R* and MS to fail with their DLC?

How about this source; CVG Magazine where it says

"Of course, to call games as vastly ambitious as Vice City or San Andreas mere 'expansion packs' seems childish, but nevertheless, the downloadable content (DLC) coming for the Xbox 360 version of IV has repositioned those games in just this way. DLC so far has meant the odd new car, jumper of bit of horse armor, but GTA IV is set to completely redefine the idea with expansions that are to GTA IV what Vice City or San Andreas were GTA III. Yes, Rockstar is clearly hinting at new downloadable cities; and the chances of them being London, Vice City or SA again are slim to none. So that's new as in brand new. GTA IV's Liberty City is the beginning. Think about that and be excited."

So, at GDC08 it was reported "think GTAIII:VC/SA scale" then again above (from this months(?)) CVG Magazine.

Perhaps you should be better informed before you "remove this from the article". Instead, why don’t you go and re-add it with the two sources I supplied instead.

So once again we can see that when other editors use blogs as a source, you won't accept it, but it's perfectly ok for you to do so. As it stands, Rockstar has not revealed any details of the DLC, and this "information" that you have added is just a rumour, so you cannot write that it is a fact.

Also you said, quote, "GTAIII:VC/SA" - why are you constantly trying to go back and rewrite history in regards to these games? Are you that desperate to make people believe that the DLC will be so huge and impressive that you must rewrite history to claim that VC and SA were just expansions to GTA 3 and not full games? The games are called GTA: Vice City and GTA: San Andreas, not GTA III: Vice City/GTA III San Andreas. Vice City was the sequel to 3, and San Andreas was the sequel to Vice City - not "expansion packs". Are you now a revisionist or something?

• ???

That was a sloppy edit on my part. That seemed like a nonsequitor, and I removed it without verifying the source. Mea culpa.

• Adds another criticism section

Another absolute falsehood. I did not "add criticism section".

The Criticism section existed, and it's sole content was the link to the main article on Criticism of Adobe Flash. So, my edit;

"Criticism of Adobe Flash have included questions of its Usability, the problems Flash-laden pages cause for those with Disabilities, its use as a means to restrict access to content, security issues, variations between platforms, the inability for Search engines to index data contained in Flash binary data and the implementation of [DRM]."

Is just the titles of the existing sections on that main-page. The article didn’t make any sense having a empty criticism section with only a link to the main article. I simply added a (very) brief list of contents and a (very) brief idea of the topic at hand.

Yeah, technically you didn't add the header, but you went ahead and added all the content. I don't need to quote WP:CRITICISM to you again, do I?

• But then removes criticism without justification.

A forum post of people frustrated with removing the software? Is that wikipedia-worthy now? Why would it remain?

• Removes criticism of Microsoft.

Who is EICS? "IBM, Adobe, Oracle, Sun, Nokia, RealNetworks, Red Hat and others" is it worthwhile criticism? No, it is a FUD lobby of MS's competitors.

Wrong. Their criticisms were worthwhile, as they are the ones who have to deal with Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. You also may have heard that the EU has fined Microsoft for their violations of antitrust laws - the exact same issue the source is talking about.

• 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.

Again, as I have amply demonstrated, I do not insert my original research into any articles as you claim. That is a patently false charge.

Read that section;

"Online PC games, particularly FPSs, are traditionally run and funded independently by Clans, gaming groups or independent players. Game Servers are typically rented by the Clan or group, and provided for players to use free of charge. Often the only infrastructure operated or paid for by the game developer is a master server which collects and serves a list of available independent servers."

"Though for Halo 2 and Shadowrun, the game owner is able to setup their own dedicated server[26], this may not be the same for every other game on Games for Windows – Live. It is down to developers to add this functionality into the service and it is not yet known whether third parties are required to add it to get the Live branding."

Do you see any citation there (except the citation for " Halo 2 and Shadowrun, the game owner is able to setup their own dedicated server" (which is true, but not material to the point)?

It doesn’t even make sense. Games for Windows - LIVE is not mandatory. The Studios/Developers can or cannot use it as they wish. Gamers aren’t required to use it. Nothing at all prevents people from NOT using it. So, what is the problem? Its just another attack passage without value on a MS article.

Being that it *is* uncited, and is the narrative work of a single non-member, identifying it correctly as OR is worthwhile.

You haven't demonstrated anywhere that you never added any OR; the only thing you did was to repeatedly state that "I did nothing and a cabal of pos-POV editors is harassing me. Help!" By looking at the diffs that are provided, it's plain to see that you add original research on a regular basis. So basically, you add OR all the time, but call out others on alleged OR infringements. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

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).

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:CRITICISM
3. WP:NOTE
4. WP:RS
5. WP:AGF
6. WP:V
7. WP:TALK
8. WP:OR
9. WP:OWN
10. WP:POINT
11. WP:COI
12. WP:CON

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

1. Regarding John.n-irl's attempt, Wageslave rejected what John said, and accused him of stalking. The discussion ends.
2. 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.
3. Regarding 8bitJake's attempt, Wageslave ignores what 8bitJake said, and attacks 8bit's motives, calling them "passive aggressive".

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

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. I'm tired to see Wageslave disrupting well written 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 proper 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)
7. 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, what’s 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)
8. I haven't investigated articles that I don't usually edit for edits by wageslave, but I've noticed on the talk pages of PS3 and MGS4 he easily gives us sources of criticism on the two products, but no pro-reactions. I find it very odd he can spend hours of time finding sources of criticism for a game(mgs4) so far very liked by the press that isn't even released yet, but does not lift a finger for the good reactions. I've even been notified on my talk page by a user. He is of course to biased or a employee of Microsoft.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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.}

Wageslave asked me to take a look at this, unfortunately I don't have time to review the whole case, but I do agree that there has been some insidious negative-POV being pushed in the Xbox 360 articles. For a perfect example, see the obvious POV sentence I removed in this edit: [27]. I did advise Wageslave that it might be best to find a less contentious area of editing and avoid the competing console articles.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. xenocidic (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see [28] Wageslave (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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.}

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)

After a careful day review of this case, wageslaves defense, and accusers POV towards him, among actual witnessing of one said argument[[29]], I've concluded the following:

1. Thought not all, most of Wageslave's edits have not been wikipedia worthy. His enormous historical amply demonstrates his preference for Microsoft and its related products such as the 360 and others. It's also hard to believe Wageslave's defense regarding his joining of non-Microsoft related projects after having been notified of their existence.

1. I've also noted that complaints against him are not by one single person, but by many, who strangely have the same complaints regarding his behavior on wikipedia. Had this been an isolated incident, I would have more sympathy towards Wageslave, however this is not the case. His presence in talk pages usually mean that present is also a long argument with someone about something he's added or edited.

I would also like to note that in some articles that I've come across, Wageslave has argued with people that were equally as lacking of NPOV as Wageslave. His edits there may not have been clearheaded as most humans tend to 'start swinging' when provoked.

However he has not admitted fault for obvious violations to Wikipedia policies.

In Conclusion: Wageslave should refrain from editing articles related to Microsoft or its Competitors. His obvious preference for MSFT and its products affect his writing and destroy perfectly well written articles. Perhaps he may take a new interest in wikipedia such as the natural sciences.

"His obvious preference for MSFT and its products affect his writing and destroy perfectly well written articles."

LOL now what Microsoft article did he edit that was in perfect condition? The only ones I saw him edit were the screwed up articles.

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.