Jump to content

Talk:Brad Wardell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

I had thought Bio articles should not use only the first name to reference the individual. The tone of this article may need to be reworked a bit to match other Bio articles (more impersonal and 'just the facts'). Some wording is a bit awkward too. GGG65 00:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

68.73.192.159 just added a prod, db, and speedy delete all at once, with the reason "...". I'm tempted to remove this as trolling, but I'd like someone else to look over it to confirm it's the right thing to do. No actual deletion request has been filed by the user - they just added the tags. GreenReaper 09:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

GGG65 Makes Some Good Points

I believe that GGG65 made some good points. The Controversy section reads like informal backyard gossip rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm tempted to delete some of these unsupported assertions but I'm willing to wait a few weeks to see if someone can come up with some reliable sources. BTW a web forum statement by a second or third party is NOT a reliable source! Regards, Bill Huffman 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe them to be improperly sourced then according to WP:BLP they should be removed immediately. GreenReaper 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you're correct, GreenReaper. If someone has a source then they can go into the history and resurrect whatever they want and then add their reliable source reference. Thanks, Bill Huffman 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2008 Update

I've taken it upon myself to begin trying to clean up this article. Any suggestions or criticisms please post here. Draginol (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

controversy section

I was just doing some research into it and there has been a masive amount of contraversy lately so i think the issue should be revisited sources include digital-distributors-dispute-npd-rankings in regards to this npd report--67.170.10.189 (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

also he was either lying or misinformed when he made the statement "By Valve's own admission, it only has 20 million accounts of which around a million and a half logon each day due to Steam defaulting to auto-starting when someone launches. To put that in perspective, that's about 1/10th the number of users Gamespot or IGN gets in a day." on this site he was referring to the amount of concurrent users because valve has never reported the amount of unique users that login in a day and also that is the rough amount of peak conncurent users for that time period.--67.170.10.189 (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Miseta case

I removed the following line from the controversies section: "However, according to her testimony, she voluntarily left the company and admitted to fabricating most of her allegations by falsely attributing items on a 'purity test' website to questions asked by Wardell." The claim that Miseta admitted to fabricating allegations is not supported by the source (the Kotaku article, which I left in), and the fact that she quit her job as opposed to being fired has not been disputed by either party as far as I know, so the "however" does not make sense. kissekatt (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent article blankings

As a note to the IPs and SPAs who have been blanking the controversy section of this article; as a reminder this article is subject to discretionary sanctions due to it's subject's relationship to GamerGate. Do not make this article your battleground. I came to this article in response to the very obviously conflict of interest editors -- IPs such as this one and this one who coincidentally geolocate to the same location as the subject of the article. I also see two essentially SPAs with similar editing patterns, both with very few overall edits, backing those IPs up. Come on guys. Let's be a little less transparent. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear -- further undiscussed blanking of *ANY* portion of this page may result in administrative sanctions as well as this page being placed under protection until you guys calm down. If you disagree with cited material, the proper solution is to bring it up on the talk page and get consensus for the removal. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC).

GG comment controversy

Looks like there's been a lot of activity here, so maybe something got lost in the shuffle:the "controversies" section says that Wardell has created controversy for his statements on Gamergate, but the citation just links to the interview itself. It's not really a "controversy" if Wardell just shouted something potentially offensive in to the ether. For my part, I didn't actually find any outside coverage of the interview. Nblund (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

@Timothyjosephwood: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." What significant views are missing? --NeilN talk to me 03:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Significant views are not missing, but the article is clearly not worded in a neutral encyclopedic tone, even with the content I have removed. TimothyJosephWood 03:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: There's no excess puffery or overblown praise so it's not clear to me. --NeilN talk to me 03:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple years ago I spent some time trying to clean up this article to better go with WP:BLPN. I am familiar with the subject from his OS/2 software though have no personal relationship beyond feeling a bit of responsibility for this article. eRegionTalk 04:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is about as neutral a list of facts of his career as you can get. About the only non-neutral bit would be around his stance on DRM. Generally having a quote by someone else that your work is 'awesome' is a bit puffey, but in context is not surprising considering the games industry's stance on DRM. (At the time Wardell was one of the few people advocating for less rather than more). Even so, the general tone of the article does not appear to be non-neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Overall I've removed a couple of whole sections and generally toned down the wording. I have removed the pov tag. I'm not sure about the primary tag. It's still pretty heavily self-sourced. Opinions? TimothyJosephWood 12:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Before you continue in your "ranting mood", have a look at WP:SELFSOURCE. --NeilN talk to me 13:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN:...that wasn't me saying I was in a ranting mood. That was the first line of the blog post, including the winky face emote. I realize that SELFSOURCE doesn't apply directly to sections being primarily based on them, but this one was, as the second source was a generic site that didn't mention the person. The other two sources were from his blog including the "ranting mood" post. Given that the article 24 hours ago was ~half sourced to self published works, and is still largely so, I think the removal was warranted.
I'm open to some version of it going back in, but it would need a rewrite and I would prefer a secondary source to establish that these opinions (which are perfeclty self-source-able) are somehow important and not just his "ranting mood" on his blog.TimothyJosephWood 13:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender removed the external links section. I can't say I disagree with that, as they're excessive and generally better used as sources, if at all. Leaving them here in case anyone would like to do so. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brad Wardell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brad Wardell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Harassment lawsuit - in or out?

On one hand, the lawsuit is covered by decent sources. On the other, it was dropped so there seems to be no lasting impact. Thoughts? --NeilN talk to me 03:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Out. Lawsuit between subject and non-notable person that was dismissed. Other editors just removed entire sections as being "trivial" that were better sourced and at least relevant to WP:BLPN guidelines (and I agree with the removals). --eRegionTalk 04:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy sections are highly discouraged in BLP's for good reason. Unless someone has significant issues, they should be worked into the body. One statement about media bias and a dropped lawsuit that didnt go anywhere are not close to hiting that mark for a dedicated controversy badge of shame section. The lawsuit should be out under BLPCRIME anyay. Brad Wardell is relatively unknown and a low profile individual even if he is notable enough for his own article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually since Miseta is also a living person and the countersuit alleges criminal activity on her part, and she is definately a non notable person, I am removing it under WP:BLPCRIME and if anyone wants to put it back they can raise it at the BLP noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Here are the sources I found (excluding those which talk about the case against Miseta without getting into the harassment case): Engadget, Polygon, Kotaku, Kotaku, and a couple which mention it in the context of Wardell, without being specifically about the lawsuit, like e.g. Escapist (an interview).
Somewhat reluctantly, unless others find more to go on, I think it should probably be left out. We have two lawsuits, both dropped, a ton of speculation, and coverage only in the gaming/tech blogosphere (some of the bigger names from that category, but limited to that category nonetheless).
I think the difficult thing is it seems like through the various documents he admits to some behaviors and personality traits most people would consider... problematic. So it's normal to have a negative reaction to seeing that Miseta dropped the suit, accompanied by a boilerplate apology letter. It feels like another chapter of a long, long, terrible social narrative. However, I don't think it would be quite in line with our BLP and NPOV policies to include the case or to say "who cares if it was dismissed -- look at this stuff it seems like we maybe can say about him that came out during the case". In other words, it seems like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If it suddenly gets a resurgence of press coverage, or if people find more and better sources, we could revisit it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I reinserted this, as it was very well-sourced as well as inapplicably removed (WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to civil matters, and the notability guidelines (WP:CRIME, WP:VIC) explicitly are limited to creation of a separate individual article on the subject, which is not at issue here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brad_Wardell/Archive_1&oldid=1146639218"