Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-20 Australian ISP - Exetel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Exetel State: Closed Requested By: User:Macktheknifeau/User:AussieLegend Mediated By: User:Canadian-Bacon Comments: Dispute appears to have ended

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-11-20 Australian ISP - Exetel 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-11-20 Australian ISP - Exetel

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: AussieLegend 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to Macktheknifeau: This request for mediation was generated 3 days before yours. Please do not edit the details of MY request for mediation AGAIN to make it look like I have made a change to my request when in fact it is an attempt by you to childishly divert the request to your request page.

Note to "aussielegend": When I made my request, your request was not in the list. It only appeared after my request had appeared, and as such I had every reason to belive my article was the first one. Macktheknifeau 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Macktheknifeau: I find what you say extremely difficult to believe based on your other recent statements regarding the Exetel debacle. If the the request was not in the list how did you find it and more importantly, having found the request, how did you not notice the title of the request which clearly shows that this request had been submitted 3 days prior to yours? I believe that your reponse is merely an excuse to cover your actions.--AussieLegend 12:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, it is not important who filed which request and who knew what about the other request. Try to focus on substantive issues. --Ideogram 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exetel

Who's involved?

Macktheknifeau who has a grievance against the ISP and who seeks to punish it by posting emotive, irrelevant and non-factual information.

AussieLegend who is quite possibly an employee of the company, who seeks to censor the article by posting biased, irrelevent non-factual and unverifiable "information" about his company. Macktheknifeau 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

This page has been the subject of ongoing vandalism. Many of the people editing the page have some axe to grind with Exetel. Almost all of the editors post at the Whirlpool (http://bc.whirlpool.net.au) message boards where posts are heavily moderated so they come here to post what wouldn't get through there. Many have had posts deleted because of trolling, personal attacks etc and they just seem intent on screwing up the entry, adding irrelevant stuff or stuff that is completely wrong. Their intent is to punish the ISP and they think they can do that by stuffing up the entry.

Other sites have no bearing on weather or not a user is allowed to post on wiki. AussieLegend and his mates intent is to censor any true, negative criticisim of the article and have confirmed to me that their only goal is to remove the section with whatever methods it takes, just like the exetel home forum. Macktheknifeau 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Most recently, Macktheknifeau, another disgruntled ex-Exetel customer, has begun an edit war. He refuses to allow the entry to be edited to anything other than what he has written (even legitimate spelling and grammar errors are reverted), he has accused legitimate editors of being sockpuppets and puppetmasters and in general, his actions fit the Wikipedia definition of a Crank (person).

I am not an "ex" customer. The only Crank (person) here is AussieLegend and the 2 or 3 other accounts created very recently, who refuse to accept that the biased, heavily moderated (to remove any form of criticism) exetel forum should not be the only thing that should be used for "source" in the article. In addition, he and his other friends/accounts were created almost exclusively to edit the exetel page to remove any criticism. Macktheknifeau 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

If Macktheknifeau would let people edit the entry that would probably be enough but recent actions indicate that he is probably unlikely to accept that compromise and I feel more punitive action may ultimately be necessary.

Unfortunately, if AussieLegend would allow the existing entry which did not violate multiple wiki-guidelines like the version his mates attempted to vandalise the entry with, to remain I would not have a need to do anything. Macktheknifeau 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Through here is fine.

[edit] Mediator response

This and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-23 Exetel are the same case so they should be merged and all comments directed here. All participants are encouraged to add their comments here, as long as you do not edit any other participant's comments directly. --Ideogram 11:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this case. Canadian-Bacon 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the case and the edit war that proceeded it and the main points that come to mind, are notability and verifiability. As with any company, there are no doubt controversies that arise, but these controversies have to be both notable enough to be included, but also verifiable by outside sources.

The other important thing is to keep a neutral point of view throughout the article. To do this, avoiding "weasel words" such as 'many people think' 'some experts agree that' 'some have claimed', etc... To solve this situation, especially with criticisms, if notabable, verifiable allegations have been made against the company, they should clearly say who is making the allegations, example: "In Nov 2005 The Sydney Herald reported that..." Canadian-Bacon 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this case still active or can it be closed? --Ideogram 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep it open. The page is currently as it should be. The disputed edits are gone and Macktheknifeau has apparently given up attempting to have his edits included so further mediation would not seem necessary. --AussieLegend 13:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gona ahead and closed the case. Canadian-Bacon 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

I have offered the other side of this to come to a compromise, and list exactly what they deem to be NPOV, or incorrect in the original version of the article they continually completely re-edit with NPOV among other things, only to have them do it yet again, ignoring my offering. Macktheknifeau 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau's "compromise" consisted of accusing two independent authors of being sockpuppets and me of being the puppetmaster. He accused the other authors of "vandalisim" (sic) and then offered to let them edit the article. When they did, with more factual information than what he presented, he again accused them of vandalism and reverted their edits.

Macktheknifeau's compromise appears to be that he will let other people edit as long as they don't change what he has written.--AussieLegend 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Aussielegends compromise appears to accuse me of being a "troll", and attempting to discredit me for supposed "trolling" on another forum, then possibly registering 2 new accounts and using them to appear to increase his support.. He will let other people edit as long as it does not make exetel look bad.

I oppose complete and utter gutting of the article section without any consensus. My compromise was for them, if they were genuine about being a positive wikipedian, to come to compromise and tell me exactly what in my section was causing them problems (as it was there already with consensus). Their response was another blatant revert. The section in dispute was not only edited by myself, but at least one other account, which was an account with a longer editing history than the other 2 accounts which have thus far only really been interested in causing an edit war on this article. The AussieLegend account is not engaged as such in instant revisionisim, and now that he has actually decided to participate by addressing my concerns as to what he/they belive is "wrong", then the 2 accounts which may or may not have been sockpuppets, or registered simply to push a POV into the article, can be safely ignored. Macktheknifeau 11:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I believe that Talk:Exetel is more appropriate for discussion of this matter as there are others involved.

User:Netsnipe has protected the Exetel page so, for the present, Macktheknifeau is unable to continue the actions that were the subject of this request. For now he will have to try to work *with* others if he wishes his amendments added to the page.--AussieLegend 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)