Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-23 Exetel
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Comment | merged |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]
Mediation Case: 2006-11-23 Exetel[edit]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information[edit]
- Request made by: Macktheknifeau 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Exetel
- Who's involved?
- User:Macktheknifeau - User:AussieLegend aka User:DarkGaucho aka User:Munkahugger
- What's going on?
- User:AussieLegend, constantly fighting legitimate edits. He wishes to remove a section on the Exetel's recent controversy on p2p shaping, forum and internet censorship. His claims against this section have no wiki basis, and are simply personal attacks on the editors involved, followed by either him, or User:DarkGaucho or User:Munkahugger which was only very recently registered, which just happened to support User:AussieLegend comletely, but has no edits beyond a few reverts of the legitimate page. Add to this the fact AussieLegends account seems to be used for the express purpose of removing legitimate, verifiable "criticism" of exetel from the wiki-article, and it is possible that AussieLegend is both a puppetmaster, a one-use account, and violating good faith. They claim that they are "improving readability" but seem to have to gut that entire section to do that, introduce blatnatly NPOV and unverifiable original research to do so.
- What would you like to change about that?
- Get User:AussieLegend to accept the section he wishes to remove are legitmate, and that more than just Exetel's own biased, heavily moderated (which is discussed in a section that is deleted by User:AussieLegend revisions, are acceptable to be used on a page.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- I don't mind. I suppose the talk page of the article and possibly my own talk page would be best.
Mediator response[edit]
Merged with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-20 Australian ISP - Exetel. --Ideogram 11:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Compromise offers[edit]
This section is for listing and discussing 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 05:28, 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 05:59, 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. 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 15:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.