Talk:Ken Kutaragi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page contains discussion for the Ken Kutaragi article from the beginning of the article up until the end of 2005.

Contents

Brazil4Linux

Attention Wiki, this article needs to be almost completely redone. It's better to not have this article at all then to have it filled with lies and irrelevant information.

You'd like that a lot, Brazil. If you can't get your way, then you'd rather see it vanish. Well, that's NOT gonna happen. Understand that. Daniel Davis 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Brazil4Linux just wiped out months of contributions...and he left in POV stuff as long as it showcased the success of SCE and PS2. :::GoldDragon 12:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Cite sources
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources
    • Informations need reliable sources: Not only did he lose the leadership of his company's consumer electronics division which lost $288 million in 2004 under him, he was removed from the board of executives and for the second time he was passed over for Sony's corporate presidency. ... While some people argued that Kutaragi's downfall was too harsh, others say he was a victim of a major setup made by then CEO Nobuyuki Idei, with whom he had an unfriendly working relationship. Other people believed that Kutaragi deserved to be pulled down in the ranks due to the massive losses Sony made in the consumer electronics market while he was head of that division. Sony Computer Entertainment, long the source of dependable profits for its parent, loss $25 million in Q4 of 2004 due to the Microsoft Xbox outselling it for the first time.... During that same year, Sony’s game sales fell to $7.5 billion from $8.2 billion, and its operating income slid to $650 million from $1 billion [1]. Also hurting Kutaragi was the unsuccessful product PSX, a DVD recorder and a hard disk drive with PS2-games playability that failed in the Japanese market.
--Brazil4Linux 14:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Some information here: [1]. It's common knowledge that Kutaragi was the heir-apparent for a long time, so when Springer became CEO, he was passed over. There should be something about this in the article. It isn't very difficult to find sources for this . Jacoplane 11:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's OK Jacoplane, Thanks. Now GoldDragon need comprove your non-sourced infos with reliable sources and not a redhiring that just say nothing about GolDragon opnion. --Brazil4Linux 21:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
B4L just god rid of stuff that he didn't like, even though I had had credible sources to back them up.
GoldDragon 12:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
You just need prove with reliable sources your POV edition. The same thing that happens in Xbox article, here isn't different. Prove Wikipedia:Reliable sources or source of the source --Brazil4Linux 13:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

The page is protected until this dispute is resolved. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:46

In particular, lot of POV and non-reliable sources about SCEI losses are being inserting by User:GoldDragon with the link of redhirring, but observes that link was recused as a reliable source in Xbox/Talk:Xbox dispute. I think He need prove the losses and the call of these with Kutaragi. I think GoldDragon edits nature try to difame Kutaragi in the article with a Fanboy POV source. He lost the Xbox dispute having 95% of your edition wiped and He trying make same here. --Brazil4Linux 15:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Brazil4Linux, couldn't you have been a bit more discriminating in deleting or modifying certain parts of the text rather than reverting to an earlier edit. I have some sympathy with your contention that some parts of the text, such as the financials, are POV, utterly irrelevant, and are the work of fanboys and are there to paint a negative picture of Kutaragi, but you also removed important details which relate to the internal politics of Sony's upper echelons. However, just because some parts are irrelevant, it doesn't mean that the tone of this article should be overly hagiographic; some controversial facts should be included.
The article as it stands at the moment is an utter disgrace for such an important business figure, with its atrocious use of language, nonsensicality of some sentences, and poor depth. AnIco 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The article is currently target of GoldDragon with a objective to defame Ken Kutaragi and Sony Computer Entertainment, posting non-reliable financial sources and extensive POV about Sony board of directions change in 2005.
About Kutaragi picture, I removed (and nominate for deletion also) because copyright infrigment. Did you ask GameSpy permission for use this image?
Controversial acts I don't see none, just quotes, Wikiquote is the best place to put them (and link here with wikiquote template).
I ask for protection because this article is being reverted by User:GoldDragon and your anonymous Sockpupets IPs ignoring the fact their edition need Wikipedia:Reliable_source, RedHiring isn't reliable and was recused in Xbox article dispute.
At this time, I consider this article needs Mediation. The same was made in Xbox article with the same user (GoldDragon) was engaged in reverts and POVs edits. --Brazil4Linux 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Then why don't you remove the suspect financials and leave the rest of the text as it is. This article is about Kutaragi and it is not meant to be a hagiography, that means that things like Kutaragi's criticism of past Sony policy should be included. And regarding this: About Kutaragi picture, I removed... is, I suppose, a reply to this: and are the work of fanboys and are there to paint a negative picture of Kutaragi,.... It isn't meant literally; it is a way of denoting the sense of meaning that the words convey.
Now, what on earth is wrong with the text below?
Ken Kutaragi (久夛良木 健 Kutaragi Ken), born August 2, 1950 is currently the President and CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, the videogames division of the Sony Corporation. He is known as the "the father of the PlayStation" and the man behind the PlayStation platform, including the next-generation PlayStation 3.
Born in Tokyo, Japan, Ken Kutaragi was an assiduous and gifted straight-A student and a natural, enthusiastic engineer; often tinkering with machinery and building things like speakers. After school he worked at the family's printing business. Kutaragi graduated from the city's (Tokyo) University of Electro-Communications[2] (Denki-Tsushin University) in 1975 with an electrical engineering degree, and immediately began working for Sony in their digital research labs. He wanted to work for Sony because of its tradition of introducing creative and innovative products [3]. Here he gained a reputation as an excellent problem solver, and a forward thinking engineer. He worked on many successful projects including early liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and digital cameras.
In the late 1980s, after becoming interested in Nintendo's Famicom system, he persuaded Sony to fund his research into what eventually became the PlayStation. The success of that project led to him leading the development of its successor, the PlayStation 2, and he is currently working on the third in the series, the PlayStation 3.
Many of Sony's executives expected that the PlayStation would fail. In fact, the commercial success of the PlayStation franchise makes Sony Computer Entertainment the most consistently profitable business division of Sony. Despite being an upstart in the console market against veterans Nintendo and Sega, the first PlayStation displaced them both to become the most popular console of that era. The PlaySation 2 extended Sony's lead in the following generation, holding over 65% of the market share despite increased competition.
Is this:
He was regonized by thozen financial and tech publications for your job and the PlayStation sucess legacy in the market.
in some way superior to the text that you deleted? What does that sentence even mean? AnIco 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with your text. I realy should ask sorry about my revert and blank your great contributions but the problem it's GoldDragon, not you. The protection isn't to block the editions, but for invite people that are reverting stop and discuss here. I moan that if the article will be unprotected and We insert your informations, User:GoldDragon will continue put losses and non- comproved negativivy Fanboy phrases - and will make reverts everyday. The problem is this at this moment. We have a user that disrespect the talk page and ignore Wikipedia:Reliable sources, insists to fight with extensive POV informations. This isn't good. I hope a Admin Mediator arrival here to keep clear the things and take the steps if GoldDragon insists and defacing the article when We reach a consensus. --Brazil4Linux 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Brazil4Linux looks exactly like a cheerleader for the PlayStation and Sony Computer. His behaviour is exactly like the fanboy that he is disparaging. B4L patrols and regularly deletes stuff in those articles if they point out ANYTHING negative about the PS...even if it is fully supported by news sources like CNET and Forbes. Yet he has no qualms for cheerfully inserting negative information in the Xbox article and I wouldn't have minded except for the fact that B4L kept reverting to a POV wikinews article that distorted the original Forbes edition. Indeed, although I made an effort to acknowledge and integrate some Xbox faults in that article, B4L just deleted Sony's faults completely in Sony articles. Just like that. Essentially, B4L didn't want other contributors to know that it even existed. Regarding this Kutaragi article, there were several different sources that stated that Kutaragi was demoted/pushed out from the height of his power, but B4L just deleted it all. 80% of that deleted information was in the article dating back to August BEFORE I edited it. --GoldDragon 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, read: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You can consider me Wikipedia:Policy. I'm watching you in POVs insertions in video game articles and crazy reverts. Have a nice day. --Brazil4Linux 15:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Brazil4Linux is not Wikipedia:Policy, nor is he adhering to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The job status section is so watered down that it ignores Kutaragi's details about his rise and fall from power. Just take a look at the August 22 2005 revision. --GoldDragon 16:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes I am. My edition document the rise and fall of Kutaragi but with NPOV statement and your edition is extensive POV.--Brazil4Linux 19:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello people, I'm one of the silent ones here but this ruckus and Brazil4Linux's meddling is hurting readers and I need to speak out on this. Brazil4Linux is the problem here, he/she/it is obviously biased and wants an imbalance in favor of Kutaragi. I don't hit Kutaragi, in fact I admire him a lot, but the TRUTH here is that he has his own failures and errors. The $288 million loss Kutaragi made as head of Sony's electronics division in 2004 was in fact real and was reported on television many months ago. The figure was in fact $288.63 million! Brazil4Linux here only wants readers to see Kutaragi's success, and this is why he/she/it RUINED the article.--Mach1
Hello GoldDragon Sockpuppet --Brazil4Linux 09:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the major problem of GoldDragon insertions is negative insinuations about Kutaragi as this a truth.

Let's create a Controverses section with all negative and POV vision of Kutaragi and your ilusional relations with Sony Corp losses.

  • Some analists complain that Kutaragi is responsible for Sony Comporation lost $288 million in 2004 and this result in a direct effect in the remove of him in the board of directors and substitution of Hoawrd Stringer.
  • Many Analysts believe that Kutaragi's demotion was surprising and indeed harsh, but his outspokeness (see below) did not win him friends in Sony's leadership: in all likelihood, his demotion was perhaps caused by his speech at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Tokyo wherein he criticised Sony's policy of using proprietary technologies and implicitly criticised the company's use of DRM technologies in reference to Sony's failure to offer a compelling strategy to answer the rise of Apple Computer's iPod [5]. For an employee to make such frank criticism of a major Japanese corporation is rare, and it is unlikely to have gone down well with Sony's most senior executives at the time, particularly the then CEO Nobuyuki Idei, with whom he had a cool working relationship.
  • Many analists complain also that Kutaragi was assigned the difficult task of turning around the consumer division that he was placed in charge of, whereas Stringer was able to successfully turn around Sony's content business. Other people believed that Kutaragi deserved to be demoted due to the large losses Sony made in the consumer electronics market.
  • Many complain that PSX was a Kutaragi failure, and hurt Sony's media convergence plans
  • With Kutaragi, Sony Computer Entertainment loss $25 million in Q4 of 2004. During that same year, Sony’s game sales fell to $7.5 billion from $8.2 billion, and its operating income slid to $650 million from $1 billion.
    • This comment was sourced in the original article. The comment, along with the source citation, was removed by Brazil4Linux. The source citation can be found here, 11th paragraph down (3rd paragraph in the "Gaming 101" section). It's an exact quote, and the source looks reliable. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think this need source of the source, a financial datasheet to prove them. --Brazil4Linux 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Newspaper and magazine articles are, if reputable, considered secondary sources by Wikipedia standards. It is not necessary to see the financial data sheets, because a reputable source has reported a summary of those data sheets. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Kutaragi labeled the Xbox 360 as "just an Xbox 1.5" and that it was "only going after PlayStation2
  • In early 2005, he criticized his own company for "not doing enough" to combat Apple Computer's iPod in the digital music ind
  • Mentioned in an interview that consumers will have to work "extra hard" to be able to buy the PlayStation 3, which suggested that the upcoming console will indeed come out with a launch price tag much higher than that of PSone and PS2.

I think these lot of POV press opnions need a section exclusevely because until now this isn't proved with financial datasheet's. Is wrong push these informations as a truth like in GoldDragon editions and insinuate that Kutaragi is responsible for all negative Sony news in last 2 years. The PSX case is cleary a high POV pushing, because the system is considered a luxury device only for Japan market (700 dollars). Let's me known what you think.--Brazil4Linux 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This is typically how articles are structured, with a separate "Criticisms" section which lists various criticisms of the subject. This section still must be factual and neutral, though. Let's see how others respond to this change... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 22:52
    • I think is good also make a References section for two reasons: clean the aspect of the sources, this is heavily used in Wikipedia actually and to explicitate who is the owner of POV analysis. --Brazil4Linux 23:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Fine by me, however, I would argue that this is irrelevant:
With Kutaragi, Sony Computer Entertainment loss $25 million in Q4 of 2004. During that same year, Sony’s game sales fell to $7.5 billion from $8.2 billion, and its operating income slid to $650 million from $1 billion.
the reason being is that serious analysts don't usually bat an eyelid at non-consecutive, single quarter losses. This entry is supposed to be a biography about Kutaragi and not SCE and its inclusion would be entirely without merit and 'off-topic'. AnIco 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with you I think this unecessary. --Brazil4Linux 14:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
AnIco, note that last two points need sources. Just look at User talk:Brazil4Linux/Sandbox this the section ready to put in the article here. Feel free to edit my Sandbox and make corrections and adaptations. --Brazil4Linux 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
One is right here. The PBS article says that Kutaragi tried to fix the consumer division using his experience with the PlayStation, so he created the PSX. The CBS (AP) source says that Kutaragi was too outspoken and that the PSX bombed such that sales figures aren't disclosed.

[4] [5] [6] GoldDragon 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's put in controversial section. AnIco and Brian 0918 they had answered OK to this system. Now we want to know what you think about this. --Brazil4Linux 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Brazil4Linux does not really believe in truth and balance, people! And he/she/it is just using technicalities to maintain a biased and positive Kutaragi article which by the way hurts readers! As for the $288 Sony electronics loss made by Kutaragi, that report is real as I saw it reported on TV last March!--Mach1
GoldDragon, why create another account to say this? Did you read Wikipedia:Sock puppet? --Brazil4Linux 09:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I did not use a sock puppet. That $288 loss was in the article since August when I checked the past revisions.--GoldDragon 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Reliable newspapers and magazines are allowed sources in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think the figures should be allowed in the article, although there is still the question of whether Kutaragi is solely to blame for the losses. That can be expanded upon. Page unprotected. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 14:53

Just update the article with the proposal made here. Let's observe. --Brazil4Linux 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't put this "And the PlayStation 3 is the most wanted video game console for the next-generation" in the article, this is blatant POV. Such language was banned from the Xbox article even though it was sourced. --GoldDragon 13:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't a POV, and It's sourced and a simply poll made in a game conference! --Brazil4Linux 21:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't speak for the entire gaming industry.
RedHerring also; --Brazil4Linux 12:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Moment of Reflexation

I just imagine a japanese reading this article. Look at ja:久夛良木健 clear and objective. But this article follows the "American Fanboy Nerd Internet Phenomena". What a shame for a country that suppose is world leader.

And Xbox Fanboys until today are finding explanations why the console was a complete failure in Japan.. USA is a really nation that need to be hated in the rest of the world. And Microsoft also. --Brazil4Linux 00:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a place for you to vent your anti-American and anti-Microsoft feelings, they probably already have criticism sections in those articles. Also, don't be a PS2 fanatic who can't stand the sight of correctly sourced information just because its negative - you should have been happy to have Kutaragi's criticisms put in a seperate Controvery section which reduces the provocations somewhat. Lastly, we are not writing this to appeal to Japanese or Americans, we are trying to get a NPOV. .--GoldDragon 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems that it would be impossible to be entirely impartial regarding the Xbox if you have the view that Microsoft "needs to be hated"... --Doom127
Dear "User:Doom127"
  1. You are New User with minor edits;
  2. You don't have a User Page;
  3. You're engaged with GoldDragon in GameCube and Talk:Nintendo GameCube to enforce Reverts;
A very, very suspicious Sockpuppet. And just curious that another user here "Mach1" signed your posts but isn't registered and writen with 222.126.127.170 IP.
I tried to assume good faith with you GoldDragon, but this isn't possible nomore. You're a extreme bad faith Fanboy engaged in POV opnions in Wikipedia. I'm tired to dispute this with you and I'm engaged in Revert in your vandalism editions. --Brazil4Linux 12:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"New User"? "Minor Edits"? You have GOT to be kidding me. I've been a user since August, and I've put forth no less than 60 contributions during that period of time on various subjects. I agree with Dragon on various subjects (such as the fact that someone who OPENLY states that everyone should hate Microsoft cannot hold an impartial point of view). Don't drag me into this fight, but don't also expect me just to stand by and let you accuse everyone who doesn't conform to your point of view of being a Sock Puppet. I'm hereby assuming Bad Faith on every edit YOU do, and am going to be watching your contributions very carefully in the future. -- Doom127
IP evidence clearly indicates that GoldDragon (talk · contribs) and Doom127 (talk · contribs) are not the same editor. Brazil4Linux, do not allege sockpuppetry without basis. The fact that two people disagree with you in the same way does not mean that they are the same person. Doom127, you are not permitted to "assume bad faith" about another editor. Both of you, if you have a problem with another editor's conduct, take it to dispute resolution. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Kelly, I already began dispute resolution procedures on the wikipedia "Requests for Arbitration" page. However, I've had the sinking feeling for a long time here that they won't be successful. Brazil4life and GoldDragon have been engaged in this back-and-forth conflict for a very, very long time, having had several people attempt to step in and stem the tide of conflict. Secondly, unlike others here, Brazil4Linux has openly stated that "people need to hate" Microsoft. Since Microsoft is the creator of the 360, as well as a direct competitor to Sony, I cannot assume that Brazil is capable of putting forth a nonbiased set of information regarding the subjects affected by this point of view.
Indeed, his posting history demonstrates both a clear bias, and no hesitation about attempting to push that bias into Wiki pages.
Given that fact, what can I do except assume that his posts in this revert war are considered to be Bad Faith edits? --Doom127
Requests for Arbitration is your last stop in dispute resolution, not your first, and your request for arbitration will likely be refused on the basis that you haven't tried earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. If you need assistance with the dispute resolution process, I suggest contacting the Mediation Committee or Mediation Cabal. (Unfortunately, I can't help you here; as an Arbitrator, my hands are somewhat tied.) Kelly Martin (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The IP address 200.147.38.146 traces back to Brazil.

Felt you'd wish to know. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC / Mediation probably the way to go

I've been meaning to look at this dispute in more detail but haven't had the time until now. The problem is that there seem to be reverts going on on a large scale, that dispute multiple sources and facts in the article. This makes reaching a consensus difficult since there are simply too many facts to debate. You really need to talk about the facts & sources on a per-case basis. However, given the tone this debate has descended to, with revert warring, accusations of sock-puppetry, anti-americanism and bad-faith assumptions, I feel those involved really need to do a RfC. If that doesn't work, request mediation. I'd be more than happy to help with this process, but there needs to be a normal discussion without revert warring and accusations flying around. Good luck! Jacoplane 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly's Decision

I don't think you quite have delved into the depths of this, Kelly. If it was just a single issue, then I would agree with you that other steps should be taken. However, (and this is a big however), this goes far beyond a single thing. This "thing" between GoldDragon and Brazil4Linux ALREADY went through mediation stages, from what I know. This thing going on between them has blown up several previous times before. THAT is why I am recommending a more serious solution to the problem; mediation has already been attempted between these two, and it's not succeeded. What we're looking at is full scale revert warring between GoldDragon and Brazil on multiple pages, and again, it's *not the first time*. If you can figure out a way to solve this, something that hasn't already been attempted previously, by all means, I welcome it. -- Doom127

I am getting pretty frustrated because I have made many concessions to Brazil4Linux, but its all to no avail, he just labels anything remotely negative as POV as a excuse to delete and revert it. A special controversy section in Kutaragi is a big compromise since it is far lighter than the tone of many news reference sources. At least I known now that B4L is openly anti-American and anti-Microsoft. Other than the barrage of bad faith "fanboy" attacks, the newest low from B4L was the sockpuppet accussation, although Doom127 predates me as a user and Doom127 actually removed some information (sales, price war) in the PS2 article that I supported. --GoldDragon 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
With the PS2 article, you didn't source how exactly it was that the XBox and GameCube specifically somehow managed to make Sony's profits plunge 98% (the reference link doesn't list either of those as a reason). While it could be SPECULATED that the competition was enough, there are so many other factors that could be at play that the speculation alone isn't enough. -- Doom127
If there has indeed been a previous mediation attempt, could you provide a link for that? I did a quick search, and it seems you've only posted messages on WP:AN. Why not give the request for mediation a shot. Seems to me this debate won't get resolved among yourselves. Jacoplane 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Found it. Seems you've had a conflict on Talk:Xbox. Jacoplane 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The next step in dispute resolution, when the issue cannot be resolved through talk pages, is to open a request for comments on the issue. (I assume the "decision" of mine that is being criticized in this section is my vote to reject the request for arbitration, and not something else.) I must admit that I'm a bit disturbed at the breakdown in good faith here on the part of several editors, and hope that y'all will sort it out soon. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Therin lies the heart of the matter, Kelly. This is a very old dispute between GoldDragon and Brazil4Linux. In prior specific seperate previous disputes, A_Man_In_Black and Brian0918 (users with topic locking capacity) were both brought in to resolve the situations. You can assume that the steps you describe, Kelly, were already taken, resolutions were made and the matters closed. However, they have since been re-opened by Brazil4Linux, which is where we are today. -Doom127
There is no need for mediation on this article as Brazil4Linux requested. Brazil4Linux's request for mediation is really an attempt to try to re-introduce anti-American and anti-Microsoft bias back into this article, even though that biased information has been rejected several times already. In the past, Brazil4Linux has failed to provide ample justification for his accusations of POV, cite sources, and reliable sources; it seems that he makes that excuse to delete entire sections of an article that he doesn't like, even though it is NPOV and cited by reliable sources. Lately, B4L has been engaging in reverts without any Talk, even going so far as to use anonymous IPs (which several users have discovered to be him). --GoldDragon 17:45, 10 December 2005

The IP address 200.147.61.151 traces back to Brazil4Linux

If you're going to make an edit, Brazil4Linux, don't try and hide behind other IP addresses to do it. It's dishonest. Sigh... -- Doom127

More Brazil4Linux Sockpuppets

Brazil4Linux is now using (traced Ips back right to him in Brazil) Sockpuppets of Quackshot, 200.147.97.92 and 200.151.100.114. This is getting ridiculous. If he doesn't stop vandalising this page, we have GOT to get it protected, GoldDragon. Daniel Davis 23:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Can you prove that I Brazil4Linux sockpuppet? --Quackshot 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, stop it Brazil4Linux. You created your account within two days of engaging in this revert war, you've ONLY edited the Ken Kuteragi article (and one other) in that time, you speak in the same stilted english that he does, and you've only reverted precisely the exact same text that Brazil4Linux's sockpuppet IP accounts have done. You're a sockpuppet and you're not fooling anyone. Daniel Davis 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Protected

Page protected due to edit warring. And yes, I have protected the wrong version. Once you have reached consensus on how to proceed, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that you place an Request for comment to help you with the dispute. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is not a dispute, but rather a case of vandalism. Please lock the version that all of us registered users agreed upon (except Brazil4Linux and his anonymous IPs), since this is not about an editing war, but rather because it is about preventing vandalism from Brazil4Linux who is trying to insert anti-American, anti-Microsoft and pro-PlayStation bias into many video game articles. It is clearly a case of vandalism since most changes to the "wrong version" have been by either Brazil or an anonymous IP without any Talk. Protecting his preferred version isn't doing anyone a favour since this perpetuates a flawed version of the article.

--GoldDragon 13:50, 16 December 2005

Mediation

I've requested mediation here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Ken Kutaragi. Jacoplane 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've turned down mediation because it isn't about an editing dispute, but rather because Brazil4Linux has failed to provide adequate justification for reverting to his preferred version, even going as far as to use anonymous IPs. The issue here is that most of us support the complete story, while Brazil4Linux only supports the 50% version that cuts out anything negative. GoldDragon 12:33, 16 December 2005

A consensus vote

Wiki would seem to dictate that we present the consensus of our editors. So, in that spirit, I'm proposing a vote; this will demonstrate the majority consensus.

Ground Rules: To prevent the appearance of sockpuppetry on any side, the following rules are established: Any voting account must be username registered. That means no anon ips. Secondly, any voting account must have existed for at least three weeks prior to this voting proposal, and contributed to edits on at least three seperate articles (besides this one).

To Vote: Place either a G (if you think GoldDragon's version is the proper edit), or a B for Brazil4Linux's version below this rule list, and sign your name using the standard four "~" mark.

I think voting should be open for about 48 hours to gain an accurate tally.

--- Voters sign Below ---

G Daniel Davis 06:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

G Kfroog 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Kfroog is sockpuppet of Doom127 (Daniel Davis)
Sir, if you impugn my honor, I should hope that you are prepared to back up your attack with a cogent argument. Kfroog 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

G GoldDragon 20:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Current Tally G3 B0 Time Left in Vote = 24 hours

This is joke? Absolutelly Bad faith by Sockpuppets Doom127 and GoldDragon. 24 hours.. tsc. --Quackshot 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I decline to vote in a mediation by Doom127. This article needs non-involved mediation. Doom127 is involved and their pool need be ignored. --Quackshot 22:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... here we go again, Brazil? Daniel Davis 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

User:Doom127 reported in Administrator's Noticeboard. for Sockpuppet accusations and personal attacks. --Quackshot 23:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

G Dear Lord. The amount of deception, name-calling, and hypocrisy that B4L has been using is positively revolting. It's already been established earlier in this talk page that Quackshot and B4L as well as other names are most probably the same user, and he has the guts to start accusing others? This is a terrible reflection on Wikipedia as a whole. -- Hinotori 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Hinotori. Quackshot's been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry (he was indeed found to be Brazil4Linux). He violated the 3RR on multiple occasions and damaged a bunch of other pages.
So... unless he's created ANOTHER sockpuppet... and is using THAT sockpuppet to try and advance the B4L opinion, I think we can count on the return of civility here... Daniel Davis 03:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
That's good to know. I have to admit, when I stumbled across this page, I was aghast at how long he was allowed to cause trouble, but I guess that's a necessary evil of assuming good faith, a policy I do respect. I'm glad this was sorted out.
-- Hinotori 04:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Why did you blank my last comment, GoldDragon?
-- Hinotori 05:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I preffer B4L version is more neutral than GoldDragon. --64.34.174.104 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well of course YOU would, Brazil4Linux, because it's your own version. Can't you stop hiding behind anon ips, revert wars and sockpuppets and actually just talk to us? Daniel Davis 14:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
You holds as a ridiculous with these accusations.Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Quackshot 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Brazil version. --GroundZero 01:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing material from talk pages is considered vandalism

Please do not delete material from the talk page, as it is considered vandalism. You may be blocked temporarily because of it. I have placed warnings on the talk pages of those editors that have blanked this page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Doom127 blanking my words here 3 times in revertions. Let's see 24h consensus involved one-way POV parties.. --Quackshot 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
There's no "thanks" involved; he's not "taking" your side, any more than he's "taking" my side, QuackShot/Brazil. He's just preserving the text of the argument that's going on here. As for YOU, you're not the least bit interested in "consensus", you just want the article put back the way YOU want it to be, and anyone else be damned! You've reverted, repeatedly, perfectly good changes that good people have made on a huge number of pages, merely out of nothing but hatred and spite, to perpetuate this edit war. There's NO reason why you should have blanked out other people's contribs on ANY of the pages you've done it to. You've done nothing but completely ruin the continuity of a number of articles. Daniel Davis 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)(Doom127)

POV

"he persuaded Sony to fund his research into what eventually became the PlayStation" ... "despite being considered a risky gamble by other Sony executives, Kutaragi had the support of Sony CEO Norio Ogha."

  • POV. Where are the sources that say He "persuaded" Nintendo? "considered a risky ganble by other Sony executives" this also need sources.
  • Move NPOV tag do Controverses section. Has many opnions from of the press there. It's simply coarse assign responsibility and pseudo-facts on opinions. --GroundZero 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Ken Kutaragi– one version or another?

  • This is a request for comment to see if you prefer the Doom127 version in the article's history or Quackshot's version. The debate is over NPOV issues.

Extensive discussion has occurred above, previously and recently. Cite (or reiterate) and sign your preference for one of three options below.

Doom127 version

  • If you differ with some points please comment

Quackshot version

  • If you differ with some points please comment

OTHER

  1. Both versions have POV push: an example the word "persuaded" is strong POV. We know the fact that PlayStation is Super Nintendo CD-ROM expansion technology, but the way this was negotiated needs sources and NPOV writing. In the late 1980s, after becoming interested in Nintendo's Famicom system, he persuaded
Someone can cite reliable source that Ken Kutaragi "persuaded" Nintendo?
  1. The Controverses section is another extensive POV pushing; The source links says nothing about Ken Kutaragi responsible for Sony Computer Entertainment losses.
  2. By the way, I think both versions Brazil and Doom127 needs extensive rewirte. Put the tags Template:Rewrite and Template:NPOV and let's request third opnions to work on the article. The preffer version is minor important; Both have POV problems. --GroundZero 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
GroundZero, I disagree with your assesment that GoldDragon's edits (I don't know why my name is being attributed to a version, I merely support the one he put forward) have POV in them. I've provided sources for your disputed claims
1- Nowhere does the article say he persuaded Nintendo regarding anything at all. In fact, the text states "In the late 1980s, after becoming interested in Nintendo's Famicom system, he persuaded Sony to fund his research into what eventually became the PlayStation."
This is, of course, fact; Kutaragi became interested in gaming after purchasing a Famicom for his daughter. He secretly worked on the sound chip technology for the SNES without authorization from Sony corporation, and only with the intervention of Ogha was he able to persuade Sony to keep the research going. It's quite well known that many at Sony were very reluctant, at the time, to support him, and were, in fact furious that he had been performing said research for what amounted to a rival company
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ps2tech/page2.asp
Secondly, there were a number of links that put forward how Kutaragi was responsible (as head of the division) for the losses the company incurred.
To put it quite simply,
There isn't POV in GD's version... Daniel Davis 13:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
The link that you posted has nothing about "persuaded" and the fact Kutaragi put Sony in the red. Can you prove with reliable links, bolding the text? The word persuaded and many others used by GoldDragon is authentic POV nature: Not for the lack of sources, by to push the reader to POV opinion about the facts. --GroundZero 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
From that link: "Even though it seemed as if Sony's foray into the console market seemed over, Kutaragi refused to give up. He petitioned for the creation of Sony's own console program, claiming that it would be the platform for Sony's future growth. After some debate, Ogha approved the start of Sony Computer Entertainment, and in Christmas 1994, the PlayStation launched in Japan." petitioned=persuaded Sony's management. If you don't understand english, don't accuse others of using it incorrectly. This article should be reverted back to this November version and then semi-protected until Brazil4Linux (and puppets) either get tired, learn english a little better, or understand that the "POV-pushing" edits they oppose to are not actually POV, but fact. PaulC/T+ 18:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I used the words Doom127 since he edited the most recent in the page's history. Jedi6 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I see what's going on here. GroundZero, don't consider me to be offensive to you, but I'm getting the strong sense that english might not be your first language? You're not seeming to understand the article content itself. The word "persuaded" isn't at all POV; I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that it is. The facts clearly state that Kutaragi was dramatically opposed by other people in Sony concerning the initial steps with Nintendo. He had to persuade (convince) the rest of the higher-ups to follow his course of action. This is precisely what the article states, as well. Daniel Davis 20:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
Hi. GroundZero asked for my opinion, even when I'm a Nintendo fan and know very little what's going on in Sony world. Or maybe because of that. =) Anyway, my humble opinion is that the article focuses too much on controversy in either of the versions. Technical things aside, the guy seems like a typical businessman, and that's hardly remarkable in my books, so why are we even mentioning that? The whole controversy bit should be trimmed down, absolutely no need to dwell in it as much as either version needs for that - in a stubby article like this, a long controversy section sticks out too much. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
So now that I've read some more on this stuff, it appears we've been Spammed. (And I hate spam. Nobody writes me anyway. Nobody notices me. I guess I'll have to put that ninja thing in my user boxes.) Which of course is perfectly logical and one of my first thoughts, but still, I'm in favor of cleaning up the article with a rather heavy hand. As far as I can guess, this guy isn't exactly Jack Thompson or anything, so there's little reason to ramble about controversy for over half of the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation!

Jedi6 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Link

The article is locked, so I'll just post the link here for now. It's the sony presentation, where Kutaragi gave a speech. Jacoplane 13:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw. And it's how NPOV works: for Kutaragi has no losses, only sucess. For Fanboys and pro-Microsoft Press, has a extensive loss caused by Ken. But the problem actually isn't this, but the words like "persuaded" ... "Despite being considered a risky gamble by other Sony executives" is the main problem of the article that push the reader to POV opnion of GoldDragon. This article needs rewrite. --GroundZero 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's see another POV-push by GoldDragon using simple words:

"During a controversial management shakeup in 2005, Kutaragi was demoted from the Board of Directors and replaced as head of consumer electronics. However, Kutaragi will remain as the head of the Sony Computer Entertainment gaming division and will also be given a new title: Group Executive Officer." --GroundZero 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What in the world is POV about this? The management shakeup WAS controversial (the vast majority of the public thought that Kutaragi was to be the head), and he was replaced by a relative unknown. Don't think me mean, but I think that you might be misunderstanding the meaning of these paragraphs here... Daniel Davis 20:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
GroundZero, NPOV is when you detail both successes and failures and properly source them. Anti-PS2 people will prefer to only give failures, while pro-PS2 supporters will give only successes, and both are blatant examples of POV since they don't tell the full side of the story. This article gives both successes and failures and there are good references for both sides.
Also, stuff like "considered a risky gamble" and "persuaded" were not the point of contention between Brazil4Linux and I. The real sticking point was that Brazil4Linux essentially deleted anything that was negative/failures despite being well referenced. That counts as a blatant POV example in its own right. Content aside, by continually reverting to his "favourite version", Brazil4Linux also took the article back to its poor editing and immature form. --GoldDragon 22:50, 19 December 2005
  • Another POV-Pushing in GoldDragon version: ''Many analists believe that Kutaragi is often blamed for Sony Computer Entertainment having a weaker year in 2004 after several years of solid growth[7]. However, analysts attribute this mainly to oversaturation of the video game market, which was the main factor in declining console sales. Sony Computer Entertainment lost $25 million in Q4 of 2004. During that same year, Sony’s game sales fell to $7.5 billion from $8.2 billion, and its operating income slid to $650 million from $1 billion [8]. Needs "many believe" before cause GoldDragon is pushing Kutaragi responsability for the losses. --GroundZero 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Demoted and persuaded are not POV. In fact, demoted, removed, fired, dismissed, all of these mean similar things and demoted is the least harsh of all of them. However, Brazil4Linux's dropped off is a poor choice of words since it is clearly sourced that Kutaragi did not voluntarily give up his position, rather he was asked/forced to vacate it. "Controversial" is also not necessarily POV, as stated earlier, is used to show how Kutaragi's demotion had both its supporters and critics. Lastly, since Kutaragi headed the Sony Computer Ent division that posted weaker than norm results, that did not help his cause and it was also ammunition for his rivals in Sony executive circles. --GoldDragon 15:37, 20 December 2005

Nowhere in Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid are there any mention of the words "persuaded", "controversial shakeup", or "demoted"... I can see how controversial shakeup can be seen as POV, but the change in management could easily be considered controversial due to the circumstances behind Kutaragi's exit from the board of directors and the possibility he could have been Sony Corp.'s CEO over Stringer. Regardless of whether this is POV or not the fact is that there were changes in management after Stringer took over. Additionally, persuaded and demoted accurately describe the situation and I don't really see any POV shown by using them in the article. PaulC/T+ 06:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Third Party Opinions

First of all, everyone chill out :) and assume good faith. Considering the lack of content on this article, im surprised about how much controversy they're really is. My opinion was request in the matter so I'll give it, I dont' own any xbox* or ps* so just assume im neutral on the issue.
1. This quote Kutaragi labeled the Xbox 360 as "just an Xbox 1.5" and that it was "only going after PlayStation2" [7] i wouldn't say is very controversial, its just typical of what industry competitors do for it. It seems like POV'ish to me, because its not really put in to a greater context of the ongoing war of words and actions with the next gen console war. If this context is not clarified i would delete it/remove/sandbox.
2. Many complain that PSX (DVR) was a Kutaragi failure, and hurt Sony's media convergence plans. [6]' While i dont think is POV, definately needs more context. I.e. "The PSX, which was introduced some time, which sold X amount, but was expected to sell X amount" Something like that.
In the PBS "I cringe" article, it did say that Kutaragi did try to use his PlayStation 2 experience to fix the consumer electronics division, so that resulted in the PSX (DVR). The gameindustrybiz reference said that the PSX was a big blow to convergence plans.
3. Perhaps for making the PlayStation a highly profitable business and no recognizing competion (and to disdain them) Kutaragi is close watched by critics who trace profiles of losses and profits of Sony Electronics Corporation. This statement is POV, unsourced, and is sharply critical of his personal nature without going into quotent quoatbles. We really need more research into the type of character Ken kutagari is, whether in context of organizational leadership or in terms of competitivness in his industry. Many analysts believe that Kutaragi's demotion was surprising and indeed harsh, but his outspokeness (see below) did not win him friends in Sony's leadership: Who are these "many analysts" ? That source doesnt give information.
The first sentence is presumptive and pretty POV and not to mention bad grammar, especially "no recognizing competition". With regard to the second sentence "his outspokeness", I believe that rather than saying "a CNN article says that...", most editors chose to make it better sounding and more anonymous by saying "analysts say that...", although they still retain the link at the end of the sentence in order to source the material. After all, the article was written by writers in that area and they in turn draw information from analysts. So this is just an issue of writing style rather than content. --GoldDragon 15:37, 20 December 2005
4. Create a ==references== section and footnote everything in proper wikipedia style.
5. Keep this page protected, and work on a sandbox version of this article.
6. Dont be a goddamn sockpuppet. If youre not in this to create objective information, you really shoudlnt be in this at all. I know it can be quite challenging at times to be NPOV. But a good tip would be to realize that whenever an adjective or verb is used that is quite scathing, (i.e. disdain) its most likely POV.
7. To sum it up. Keep article protected, sandbox new version, get more research, put conterverisies in proper understandable context.
Thats my piece homeys. P.s. if anyone wants to help my Metal Slug or Contra (arcade game) or Gradius series projects, id be delighted :)--Larsinio 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comments Larsinio, I'm requesting comments for all WPCVG community at this time and I will nominate this article for GCOTW. I think lot of rewrite work needs in this article and the WPCVG community will decide not only 2 users. --GroundZero 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Having been called in here for said third-party opinion, I can't say as there's anything in particular wrong with it. Just a few thoughts:
  1. I didn't see anything connecting the PlayStation to the SNES. In fact, IIRC, wasn't Kutaragi involved in the latter console's production, as well? I could've sworn he was, at least sound-wise or something. I may have to look into that at some point.
  2. Kutaragi does do a lot of trash talk. Wouldn't surprise me if a lot of execs do (anyone remember how Nokia said that all GBA players were pretty much 10-year-olds as part of their N-Gage announcements? Yeah, exactly). Regardless, I don't think trash talking the 360 specifically deserves its own category under "controversies" - something a bit more general, like "he is known for heated comments about his competitors" or something similar.
  3. Is Kutaragi really solely to blame for the PSX? Moreover, is that particularly notable in the grand scheme of things?
Other than that, it seems like it's on a pretty good start to me. --Shadow Hog 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
In the PBS "I cringe" article, it did say that Kutaragi did try to use his PlayStation 2 experience to fix the consumer electronics division, so that resulted in the PSX (DVR).
I would admit that the trash talk and PlayStation-SNES is either weak or not well researched, so I'm in favour of excluding it until more info is found.
Otherwise, I'm pleased that the debate over content is over (so the end of reverting to Brazil4Linux), and that most of the work is mainly on the rewriting. So a big thanks goes out to users Larsinio and Shadow Hog for moving this article forward. --GoldDragon 19:42, 20 December 2005


I'm just going to add a couple of observations.

  1. A lot of language in this article, especially in the controversy section, is either "weasel" language or borders on it. The primary example if the overuse of the word "many". How many is many? Who are these "many analysts" that the authors reference. Why not specify them and provide sources and citations? Without providing names, it's impossible for a reader who is not already familiar with Kutaragi, to verify details. And does many analysts mean a "majority"? For example, out of 1000 analysts, someone might consider 100 to be "many" but is that significant? Again, without providing numbers, how can a reader verify the details?
  2. The phrase..."Here he gained a reputation as an excellent problem solver, and a forward thinking engineer" is also borderline weasel. With whom did he have this reputataion, was it with fellow coworkers? Was it with his superiors? Again, what is the source, and what exactly does that phrase mean?
  3. I lost count of the spelling errors in this article after 10. Needless to say, go over it with a fine tooth comb and correct them.

TheRingess 05:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Kuteragi, the SNES and the link to the Playstation

I've heard recent discussion about "Playstation-SNES". I'm assuming that you're referring to this:

"In the late 1980s, after becoming interested in Nintendo's Famicom system, he persuaded Sony to fund his research into what eventually became the PlayStation. Despite being considered a risky gamble by other Sony executives, Kutaragi had the support of Sony CEO Norio Ogha."

Correct?

I know I've posted this link earlier, but I believe it has relevance to this discussion. It clearly provideds a basis for the fact that the paragraph isn't POV at all. It provides facts regarding Kutaragi, the SNES and the Playstation. And honestly, I believe that it provides quite a bit of insight into Sony's corporate environment at the time. It also demonstrates that Kutaragi was willing to take risks if he believed the rewards were enough, even if others didn't see the potential. Furthermore, it shows Norio Ogha's faith in Kutaragi, from the SNES sound chip and onward. Daniel Davis 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

For those of you Confused about the Sockpuppets

While both sides accused each other of being sockpuppets there was only one. User:Quackshot was a sockpuppet of User:Brazil4Linux. Quackshot was banned indefintly and Brazil4Linux was banned for a week so we should not have anymore problems like that. Jedi6 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm not a valuable part of this discussion (I don't know enough about the article itself to contribute either way about the actual material), but are you sure GroundZero isn't a sock puppet of B4L as well? I find it suspicious that his first edits were on December 18th, and since then just about 100% of them deal only with this article (particularly with asking a bajillion users to look at this page). Not to mention that his comments and english resembles B4L as well. This isn't an accusation, and I'm certainly not doubting your truthfulness in any way; I'm just checking to see that the discussion itself is honest. If I'm off base, I apologize in advance to GZ. But if not...
-- Hinotori 09:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I was surprised to have a message from GroundZero regarding this on my talk page considering I don't know who GroundZero is and never heard of him, but I have talked with Brazil4Linux in the past regarding a small dispute with GoldDragon on the SCE page. How do you check if someone is a sockpuppet?PaulC/T+ 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I also received such a message from GroundZero on my talk page. If administrators have access to registered users' IP addresses, one could geolocate Brazil4Linux and GroundZero to check whether the accounts are being used from the same location, in which case it is very probably a sockpuppet. GrumpyTroll (talk).
Let's not jump to conclusions here. While Quackshot and Brazil tended to be openly hostile, GroundZero hasn't shown indications of that yet. He's kept his manners in check, which tends to go a long way for me. Perhaps we ought not to be too hasty here; he very well might just be an individual with a difference of opinion. If he starts getting out of line, then we should look into it, but right now perhaps we should give GroundZero the benefit of the doubt? Daniel Davis 11:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
I see no harm in checking into it. I don't think anyone has actually made an accusation, but from the evidence shown here, I think it's definitely worth looking into. -- Hinotori 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I may revise my original assessment... Checking his userpage, GroundZero's placed an identical message on 30+ individuals talk pages. All of those specific individuals each have significant influence; sway, if you will, in Wikipedia. Given that GZ's only been contribbing for about a week, how would he know to drop messages on exactly *those* user's talk pages? Daniel Davis 11:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
Perhaps he wrote to participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. GrumpyTroll (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
Perhaps, but I am not on that list and my possible connection to this page is through Brazil4Linux. Very odd. PaulC/T+ 11:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I had assumed that was why I got a message, but I just checked both lists (messaged and participants) and they don't seem to line up that well. Odd. On a side note, anyone have any idea what's wrong with my Talk page link? Kertrats | [[User talk:Kertrats|Talk]] 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, there's a whole page about why it was like that. Kertrats | Talk 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
... Isn't that almost exactly what I said the first time? :D -- Hinotori 11:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. However... there is a problem. During Quackshot's abuse of Wiki, he was using logged-out IP addresses to do his thing. Those were quickly traced right back to him in Brazil... But, then users noticed that he discovered how to utilize anonymous IP addresses in order to mask himself. One would assume that, even if GZ were a sockpuppet, he would be hiding behind an anon IP and thus wouldn't be verifiably traceable anywhere (anon ips just bounce back on a trace)... Daniel Davis 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
If Groundzero is a sockpuppet he is violating his ban by using sockpuppets which will get him banned again. It has already happened once with Brazil4Linux. Jedi6 12:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this really a problem at this point? If there are enough editors watching the page, there's isn't very much damage that a single editor can do. If something really needs to be done, we could request that a member from the arbitration committee does a CheckUser. However, for that to happen, I think we'd first need to go through a WP:RFAR. Jacoplane 12:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Or go through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jedi6 12:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Jacoplane, since lot of third opnions are arriving here, we are seeing, this is a videogame Fanboys dispute, I repeat we need third opnions because both parts involved: GoldDragon, Doon127 and Brazil4Linux are pushing POV and trying to reach consensus with POV statements. --GroundZero 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

GroundZero is a sockpuppet

I asked User:Fred Bauder, who can check User IP's, about GroundZero.

    • Its all coming in from the same country, on variable ips. Brazil has one provider. GroundZero and Quackshot have another. So probable but not definitive, you'll have to go by the edits.

Along with the previous edit I think we can confirm he is a sockpupper. I am waiting to report him until I can ask him a question on his talk page. Jedi6 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That is truly unfortunate. That would mean that, for over a month this whole mess has been the result of one bloody persistent individual who refuses to accede to the consensus of the group? Daniel Davis 23:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

It seems to me that both versions are unacceptable.

After reading the talk page and becoming thoroughly lost at the enormous numbers of sockpuppets on both sides of the debate, I looked over the differences [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kutaragi&diff=31396701&oldid=31395898] (correct me if these aren't the two versions that are being argued over). As I see it:

  • Everything up to the Executive Rise section is better-worded in Doom127's version, but not much has changed, so simply for readability, I'd say go with that version for the intro.
  • I'm confused at all the controversy over the word persuaded, since both versions have that wording. I do feel it's POV, but who exactly is complaining about it when it remains unchanged between the two versions?
  • I prefer the Doom127 version of the Job Status section, but feel that the phrase "controversial management shakeup" is rather POV and would be better served as written in the Quackshot version.
  • Once you get to the controversies section, both versions use a huge number of weasel words and POV statements. It's rather hideous. However, Quackshot's version is far less POV, and isn't so enormously slanted against Sony. It gives information about the financial losses but doesnt, er, gloat over it. I'd say with some rewriting to get away from some phrases (such as the overuse of the word "many", as has been previously noted).

That's all. Kertrats | [[User talk:Kertrats|Talk]] 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above sentiments, basically the article needs a major rewrite. If I had to choose between the versions I feel that Doom127's version is slightly better in terms of readability and would prove easier to fix going forward than Brazil4Linux's version. The controversies section in particular needs a lot of attention. PaulC/T+ 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Bolded text, I'm saying this here but looks like Fanboysm is POV major argument here. GoldDragon and Brazil4Linux are extreming POV texts, and Doom127 endorses GoldDragon POV version, I think this article needs complete rewrite. And to finish, we are not seeing t consensus here Kill the controverses section or make a complete rewrite of the article. --GroundZero 20:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Image

Image:Kenkutaragi.jpg
Ken Kutaragi with two of his creations, the PSP and the PlayStation 2

I found this image, that seems to aproprirate and is similar ot the Shigeru Miyamato image in context. --Larsinio 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Only, the URL you gave as the source does not seem to work. Besides, if you just copied this from some random website, I don't think you can claim fair use in this case. Jacoplane 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Its an AP photo by SHIZUO KAMBAYASHI / AP alaso from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002042597_nintendo22.html . I have updated hte information on the image.
It's copyrighted by the AP then. You cannot claim fair use in this case. Jacoplane 15:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You could perhaps slap the {{promotional}} tag on the image. There's still a good chance it might be deleted though. Jacoplane 15:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Worst video game Wikipedia article. Writen by Xbox Microsoft Fanboys to difame Kutaragi and PlayStation with negative POV statements, very bad for Wikipedia Computers and Videogames Community.

Kutaragi persuaded Nintendo? Controverses section is a complete amount of POV doesn't have proves in source links that Kutaragi is responsible for SCEI losses or "blamed" Sony Corporation. Controversial Shakeup/Kutaragi Demoted? That's ilarious Fanboy statement because was a simple board strategic changes. Xbox Fanboys (ex-Dreamcast/SEGA-hurteds) are trying to defame Sony PlayStation and a Man of Sucess with this article.

A complete shame for a Encyclopedia. Curiously, this is a open-source project, GNU Project, but Bill Gates sons are here because they don't have freedom by their controversial Microsoft Company.

  • Rewrite Biography section
  • Kill Controverses POV section completely
  • Keep article protected until Microsoft Kids disappear --Oddie 01:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh my god... here we go AGAIN. A B4L sock is outed, disappears for a tiny amount of time, then all of a sudden ANOTHER mystery stranger with NO PRIOR contributions appears to take up the "brave fight" on behalf of B4L. I was polite with priors, and was quite nice to GroundZero, but this latest is just beginning to tick me off. Daniel Davis 01:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
Not to mention excessive personal attacks from someone who threw around the assume good faith link like it was going out of style.
-- Hinotori 03:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Remember how Brazil4Linux said that America and Microsoft had to be hated, and how he uses the Fanboy comback often? Oddie's style sounds the same, bluring out of "Fanboy" without proper support at even supported negative material, and taking potshots at Microsoft and Bill Gates (even though its not relevant to this article).
Groundzero's style seemed neutral at first but lately is also veering in a Brazil4Linux direction, with the use of familiar trademark fanboyism, making a thin attack on Brazil4Linux to cover his tracks, and then going back to old ways and accusing Doom127 of being POV.
With regards to the controversy section, it was concieved as a compromise to lighten the article and appease Brazil4Linux. In the August 2005 version of the article, most of the controversy content, such as Kutaragi being removed as consumer head and incurring large losses, was a major part of the main body of the article. However, Brazil4Linux kept indiscriminately stripping away that part of the article that he found negative, ignoring sources, and this led to revert wars. So we moved that material to a special section in order to stop B4L's reverts, so his later reverts only focused upon that segment and left the rest of the article untouched. However, because that material is fact and well-backed up, we could restore it as part of the regular article. Perhaps we could consider working on the latest November version before the controversy section was added. -- GoldDragon 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur. The article would best be served by restoring it back to that November edition, before B4L started all this nonsense. Let's clear away all the gunk that's accumulated and let the article have a fresh start. Daniel Davis 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
Is this the November edition you are referring to? PaulC/T+ 07:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with these guys is envies and the inferiority complex. Since PlayStation Supremacy kills SEGA loser and humiliated Microsoft with Xbox lot of Fanboys are hating Sony. I have penalty of them, these nerd kidults with 20+ priosioners of videogames companies, complete losers in real life using video games industry to justify their suck life. 100 milion units was sufficient to take the sleep of these losers. Doom127 and GoldDragon, probably the next 10 generations of your families isn't sufficient to make what Kutaragi makes. American idiot losers. --GroundZero 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Insulting people will not help your arguments. Honestly, this article would be MUCH better if Brazil4Linux (and his avatars) left it alone. If there is any "POV-pushing" like you have said, you should let other people deal with it because you obviously cannot make impartial decisions regarding this matter. You are just as bad-if not worse-at pushing your POV than GoldDragon or Doom127 has been in my opinion. Do yourself a favor and take a break from this crusade you are on. Come back in a few weeks and take it easy with your edits. People will stop taking you seriously unless you learn some moderation. (Also, I'm not trying to insult you, but your grasp of the english language is pretty bad. It would be in the best interests of readability for you to post any proposed changes you want to make on the talk pages of articles and ask for help in implementing them. It is really a pain in the ass to have to go through an article and clean up bad english. This is really more of a problem with Brazil4Linux, but something tells me he will get this message as well.) PaulC/T+ 05:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Doom127 is sockpuppet of GoldDragon

They are same person people, engaged in same revert wars in Nintendo GameCube; Nintendo Revolution and Apple Computer articles and they share the same point of view and fight with same editions also here! They don't have user pages are new users and share same lack-of-arguments-pov-pushing opinions! Revert warring a lot! See the contributions of this impersonator guy. [7] [8]

As an anon. editor from Brazil (ip trace), I don't think you have much room to complain about sockpuppets. Kertrats | Talk 03:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As said earlier, Doom127 predates me by several months. We have had disagreements before but all of us agree that Brazil4Linux/Quackshot/GroundZero/Oddie's views are too extreme, too anti-American and too anti-Microsoft and this could not possibly be NPOV or in good faith. At the same time, all of us also agree that Brazil4Linux is also too pro-PlayStation and too pro-Sony in the way that he reverts so there will be no trace of negatives. A perfect example is in the PlayStation 2 article; I wrote much of the early PS2 history, most of it being positive with some negatives. B4L just deleted all the negatives even thought they were fully referenced, and he kept the positives despite their lack of any sources (I later found sources to justify them). -- GoldDragon 22:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, it's both hypocritical and insulting to be labeled a "sockpuppet" by an individual who's been repeatedly revealed to use them. I'm my own individual, not some damn puppet, Brazil. To be perfectly honest, I disagree with your versions of the text because they shown an innate lack of study on the subject.
Heck, Brazil, you've gone so far as to actually attempt to delete portions of the article that placed Kutaragi in a POSITIVE light!
You know that one you keep bringing up that has the word "persuaded" in it? Where you keep saying he "persuaded Nintendo"? You haven't even read the entirety of the SENTENCE, let alone the paragraph, because if you did, you would see that it describes how Kutaragi persuaded SONY into allowing him to continue his research.
The paragraph details how the man had the foresight to see the benefits that could be gained from investing in gaming. And he did the research despite the fact that he was constantly opposed by corporate know-nothings within Sony that didn't share his foresight. Yet you keep saying "Doom127 is pushing POV, how did Kutaragi persuade Nintendo".
And you've constantly labeled me as a sockpuppet, invaded my user contribution pages, called me a "shit vandal" (your own words), ruined numerous articles I've contributed to, all out of your own spite.
What does that say about you, Brazil4Linux? Daniel Davis 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Oddie/Quackshot/GroundZero are all now blocked users. Oddie/Quackshot as socks, GroundZero for being too close to the username of admin Ground Zero. Please let me know if Brazil4Linux keeps this vandalism/pov pushing up and I will extend his block.  ALKIVAR™ 08:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Status?

So, what is next with this article? It is quite obvious that many people here would like to improve the article as it currently stands, the only contributer that is objecting to these changes is Brazil4Linux and his avatars. Can this page become unprotected at this point? What needs to be done before this can happen? Is there consensus that Brazil4Linux's concerns are unfounded? Are GoldDragon/Doom127/ect. just trying to make negative edits about Kutaragi and is this really a bad thing even if the edits are factual and encyclopedic? What can be done at this point? PaulC/T+ 05:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people want to help the article out. And yes, Brazil4Linux and his socks are the only ones at the moment keeping this article from getting unprotected, as far as I've seen. You have NO idea the amount of trouble that guy is causing me, Psantora, everything from attacking my userpage to following around my contrib sheet and undoing edits. This, of course, indicates a total lack of willingness on Brazil's part to "play nice", and that if the article was unprotected, he'd just plop right back in here doing the same old thing he was.
There are lots of concerns, given Brazil's current behavior, and prior statements regarding his point of view. Statements like "Kutaragi can have no losses", statements like "All should hate Microsoft, and America too" demonstrate, in my mind, a clear inability to write from a non-biased perspective.
As for Kutaragi, you've got proof in the edits that I've got nothing against the guy. Heck, I was one of the people that's been rooting for keeping Kutaragi's early history in when Brazil made a misguided attempt to remove it (he didn't like that it had the word persuaded in it, for some reason). This early history demonstrates the man to be an intelligent, capable risk-taker, someone who knows where the future can lead.
I'm not sure what can be done. At the moment, I seem to be taking the brunt of Brazil's "edits" in a large number of other areas of Wiki, and I would hate to see anyone else have to deal with it. Daniel Davis 06:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
I just checked out your user page and it looks like "CoreSystem" and "BreakingRules" (oh, the wit) are two more sockpuppets of B4L. Man, this is just sad. I don't understand what his obsession with you is. I'm really sorry you have to put up with this bullcrap. I have to say, I admire how calmly you've been taking all of this.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Brazil4Linux will talk himself into more trouble if he keeps this up. His ban was suppose to expire today, on the condition that he refrain from sockpuppets (the latest at warning was GroundZero), but Oddie and the subsequent ones will probably extend his block. He has also made attacks against Jedi6 and ReyBrujo regarding other videogame articles. It is pretty frustrating spending our efforts to deal with Brazil4Linux's extreme anti-Microsoft bias, vandalism and personal insults, when we should be instead debating how to improve the article. -- GoldDragon 17:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article Protected

Keep the article protected until Microsoft Fanboys disappear and to avoid another pov pushing revert war.

That was from 201.29.239.54
Boy, he sure doesn't give up.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 13:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
He's started attacking the PS2 and NeoWin articles now, too, Hinotori. Quite a bit of massive blanking of previously verified source material on the former (he's erased everything dealing with the DREs, and he's replaced header text with gibberish), and he keeps on inserting a rather nasty paragraph calling NeoWin a "Microsoft fanboy blog"... sigh. Daniel Davis 13:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
Oh, joy, he's apparently created ANOTHER sockpuppet named ForeverWatch, and he's trying to attack me on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit&section=36 page with it. Daniel Davis 13:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
Hey, let's try the shiny new semi-protection! Only the implementors should first write a special version of the semi-protection system that specifically says "Editing this page or its talk page, in non-quote context, to include the word 'fanboy' will lead to permanent ban". =) =) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Another idea is to limit contributors to those who have had their registered user names for at least a month or so, this way it will discourage sockpuppets and anonymous vandals.
Of course if the semi-protection does work, I'm all for it. We should not need to be defending against Brazil4Linux vandalism and anti-Microsoft rants forever when it is clear that the material is properly sourced. This article has to go forward. -- GoldDragon 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that you really need another opinion, but here's mine anyway. I think any edits Brazil and his sock puppets make at this point can be reverted as vandalism. Despite POVs on both sides, Brazil is the only one here who categorically refuses to compromise and resorts to name-calling, wildly false accusations, sockpuppetry, and general bad form. I don't particularly care about this article, but one of Brazil's alleged IPs requested on my talk page that I drop a line here, though I don't suppose this was the message he wanted me to send. -- uberpenguin 05:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection removed

Ten days is enough for protection. Hope the air has cooled off and editos can proceed with contructive edits from now one. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Executive rise and controversial management shakeup

If was controversial, need put into the propper section, right?

I don't even see why we NEED a "controversies" section in the first place; it was originally something, if I recall correctly, that was created in order to satisfy Brazil4Linux. It seems like the info in it would be best served being filtered back into the main article. What's the group consensus on this? Daniel Davis 23:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
" This is typically how articles are structured, with a separate "Criticisms" section which lists various criticisms of the subject. This section still must be factual and neutral, though. " -Brian0918 (2005-12-3 22:52)
Brian is administrator and very experient user. This isn't "Brazil4Linux satisfaction", this is how Wikipedia is written.

PS3 FPS

One of the bullet points: "Kutaragi says that PlayStation 3 is capable to run games at 120 fps." (This was followed by some weasel words about "some people complaining" that people couldn't perceive this, which I removed.) Shouldn't this be in the PS3 article rather than here? If there are no complaints I'm going to remove this entirely. It doesn't fit in well with the other bullet points in that same section, which are about Kutaragi's professional career, not technical specifications. Firebug 00:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its true that Kutaragi's trash talk, such as Xbox 360 being an Xbox 1.5, and the PS3's 120 fps, has little place in the article, as we had discussed earlier. As usual, all executives like to boast about their companies' capabilities, such as Bill Gates saying that Halo 3 will come out right in time for the PS3 launch. -- GoldDragon 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think these comments are important because they illustrate why Kutaragi may have been demoted from the board. False statements (they are false, no?) like this from the head of the gaming division within Sony is not exactly the best business practices... That said, I wouldn't miss it if it were taken out... but there is substance behind the point. PaulC/T+ 07:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dangit all!!!

I was wondering why a near-untraceable IP address was making the last significant contributions. So I traced the last so-called "anon" contributor, 201.29.52.180.

It's )(*#$(*#$ Brazil4Linux AGAIN!!! That's IT. We need to get that "semi protection" put up, obviously, before we can actually make any progress in this article. Daniel Davis 00:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

  • Semiprotection has been requested on WP:RFP. Firebug 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
And granted again by me :)  ALKIVAR™ 01:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. :) -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 10:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If any article can benefit from it, it's this one. Daniel Davis 00:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Craziness. How did you tell it was B4L? It traces to Brazil? This is becoming an enormous waste of time. What the hell is his problem? If it's indeed B4L, then I fully support the semi-protection.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 01:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Brazil4Linux uses an internet service provider called Veloxzone.br; every time he slips up and forgets to "anonymize" his posts, it shows up. Using an internet IP tracer, it pops up every time. Daniel Davis 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

References

There are a ton of references in this article... would it be a good idea to list them into a references section? Is there an easy way to do this with the wiki code? PaulC/T+ 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea; a link to Ken's biography book might be helpful too. Daniel Davis 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Sorry...


You know, I think he may be on to something here...Kertrats | Talk 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Brazil4Linux once again proves why this article needed the protection that it has. Daniel Davis 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
I suggest that we restrict the Talk page to registered users, and even allow the blanking out of comments which are obviously personal attacks and non-constructive. Of course I'm not sure if this is allowed by Admin or not. I would like to debate without the interference of extreme POV. --GoldDragon 20:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well... GoldDragon, as long as the main page itself stays semi-protected, then the article can go forward. And legitimate non-registered users can still request changes on this page, if they want to. Brazil's outbursts here, while disruptive, don't carry any weight anymore, since he can't vandalize the article. Daniel Davis 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
For the record, I ran an ip trace on the ip (201.29.52.180) of the user who submitted this crazed, hateful rant and it traces to "20129052180.user.veloxzone.com.br." Incidentally, veloxzone.com.br has been established to be the service that B4L uses. I really think his comments here deserve an indefinite block.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Correct. It traces right back to that same ISP Brazil4Linux has always relied on from the beginning. Good work on the trace, Hinotori. Daniel Davis 08:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

I am Brazil4Linux

What ridiculous sockpuppets accusations. I just left for End-of-year wikibreak and newbies had attacked me for the coasts. Both of User:Alkivar and User:Jedi6 had not proved with IPs that I have Wikipedia:Sockpuppets. Alkivar was nominated 2 times (argh..) before get sysop status, I can understand this controversial accusation. Other members I simply consider lame/newbies, because they don't have the half of mine edit counts and time here in Wikipedia. Regards, the real Brazil4Linux. --Brazil4Linux 03:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were supposed to be blocked for a month. Oh well. At least if you continue to make trouble, identifying you will be a lot easier.
Regards, Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 04:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Is this going to start all over again? Jedi6 02:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Subcategories

Regarding B4L's latest brilliant changes. This article looks like total crap with all the sub-categories removed. I did a search of this page and where did Jossi say that it'd look better without them? I'll wait a while before putting them back in, but right now it's just a big chunk of text. Furthermore, I think the "Original Research" template needs a defense before being put up there. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 04:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How the HECK did Brazil4Linux log back in? Nandesku gave him a 1 Month block for his prior actions only a few days ago! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABrazil4Linux Daniel Davis 06:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
It appears it was a simple block overlap... theres a bug in the block system... if i apply a 1 week block then apply a 1 month block afterwards, only the 1 week block stands (shortest block = effective period). I think what happened was the block ended up expiring due to overlap. I have since reblocked for 1 month. We'll see if this holds.  ALKIVAR™ 12:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
And there was much rejoicing...
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 14:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Alkivar. I've got my User Talk page on watch. If I start recieving angry "death to America" posts from his IP again, I think that means that the block is holding. Daniel Davis 13:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Article reorganization

The major change I enacted was the swapping of the "setup to fail" and "large losses" paragraphs, as well as rewording the linking sentences. Now, Kutaragi's demotion can be seen from two points of view; he did not manage to fix the consumer division but it was also a very difficult job that he was tasked with. The heading "Analysts assessment" could rather be a detailed section on Kutaragi's tedious relationship with Sony's innner circle. --GoldDragon 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)