Talk:Ruckus Network/Mediation

Mediation

Hello. Nroseszu requested mediation for this article. First, I'd like to remind everyone that the results of this case are non-binding, and that I am in no way operating in an official capacity for Wikipedia. Nor am I an administrator. I'm just another ordinary user, like you :)

Now, on to the matter at hand. I have reviewed the article, its edit history, and the discussions on Talk:Ruckus Network and User_talk:Plasticbadge.

Reminders

Before we proceed, I'd like to issue some reminders.

• Plasticbadge, please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. Comments such as "Irregardless" isn't a real word moron. will not help resolve this issue.
• Both editors should assume good faith. Plasticbadge, please be advised that, while being an employee of a corporation may make a user's contributions suspicious in your mind, no one user "owns" a Wikipedia article. Telling other users to "keep [their] nose out of the criticism section and the wording of the article" is generally frowned upon.
• Nroseszu, accusation of libel, as you leveled in the mediation page, is a serious matter indeed. If Ruckus Network truly feels libelous material is present on the page, please visit WP:LIBEL.
• Nroseszu, please do not delete items from your user talk page. Feel free to archive it if you feel it is getting too crowded.
• Both editors are strongly encouraged to follow the three revert rule, as violations of this rule may result in administrative action in the form of blocks. Discussion on talk pages is always preferable to blanket reverts and edit wars.
• To both editors: please sign all of your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Questions

• There are a plethora of anonymous IP edits in the history page. Nroseszu, were you 216.143.51.66?

No, that was a college intern who took it upon himself to edit the Article page without my knowledge. I stepped in with my user account once I was informed he was trying to "update the Wiki page" -- I was attempting to provide accurate information as a knowledgeable Ruckus employee; however, as you can see, this was perceived as "corporate whitewashing" -- even though I was merely attempting to clarify points that were not accurate (our business model, user base, etc) and those points that were not properly cited/supported. -Nroseszu

Compromise

Because there are just too many reverts/edits to deal with individually, I feel we should just start at the beginning of the article and work our way through to the end in order to come up with a suitable compromise version for all parties involved. The article needs an overhaul anyway, as it does not conform to WP:LAYOUT and WP:Manual of Style (thus the {{wikify}} tag that I added). Also, please familiarize yourselves with WP:CITE before we move forward. Articles must be verfiable. Finally, take a look at some of the featured articles for inspiration.

First, is the name of the company Ruckus or Ruckus Network? If it's Ruckus, I propose we move the article to "Ruckus (online music service)" or something similar for clarity's sake. Thoughts?

The official name is Ruckus Network. The current location/name is fine. -Nroseszu 10:22, 9 November 2006 (EST)

OK, now onto the article itself. Since Ruckus is a company, take a look at the article on Microsoft for some inspiration, although obviously, this article won't be as long. Note how many inline citations there are. I propose an overhaul of the structure of this article, as so:

• Lead
• History
• Products and services
• Criticism and controversy - This would include the Facebook incident
• See also
• References and footnotes
• External links

This will allow us to convert those lists to prose. Thoughts? Gzkn 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. This format would be wonderful. My main issue was that the Ruckus Article is not in line with Articles of other simliar companies. Whenever I attempted to format anything that was informative or factual about the company, I was quickly slapped with the phrase "adspeak."

From my perspective, anything that was posted that was not negative or critical of Ruckus' possible shortcomings was flagged as dubious marketing or adspeak. Simple statements and external links to relevant newspaper articles were removed by the same definition. This troubled me seeing as other company Wikipedia articles are clearly outlined with History, Products and Services, etc. -- whereas Ruckus was merely a brief blurb, Features and Restrictions (one line features, the rest restrictions), Criticism, and the Brody Ruckus incident. Seems pretty biased towards a negative Ruckus user's framework if you ask me. (PlasticBadge has admitted that he was a former user of the service)

Please be aware that throughout this entire process I have tried my best for active communication and collaboration. I am not doing this as a "work project" and am not part of some "evil corporate" agenda as PlasticBadge, has noted on several occassions. It just becomes very frustrating when it's a two person battle, so-to-speak, in which one user's knowledge of Wikipeda clearly gives them the advantage of the final edit -- regardless of what the truth may be.

As I said above, I have no problem with the format as set forth above -- in fact, I would greatly welcome it. It provides a fair and balanced compromise to the situation. I would only ask that you, Gzkn, help us through this entire process.

Finally, I do apologize for my lack of proper Wiki protocal -- but I'm a fast learner :) -Nroseszu 10:17, 9 November 2006 (EST)

I'd start off by saying that I stopped using the service but I harbor no ill will toward it. My use of the service led me to this article, but to my knowledge there are few other regular editors of this article. I'm sorry if that gives the impression that I am trying to "take ownership" of the piece. In fact, I have largely limited my actions to protective actions acainst what I felt were suspicious changes in wording that favored the company. In some cases IP users would delete the criticism section en masse. Needless to say I found such actions odd, so when Nroseszu finally admitted to being a company employee, alarm bells went off. He posted that he was staying overtime at the office to work on the Wiki with a graphic designer who was creating content just for the article. Instead of meaningful changes, though, (such as building a comprehensive history section), he resorted to petty changes to the wording of the criticism section and superfluous links. I understand that he is new to Wikipedia, but I had no choice to follow him into a revert war as he kept editing the article without discussing major changes in the talkpage beforehand. let's make this civil and discuss any changes on here before making them, shall we? - Plasticbadge 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will ingore the attacks on my character as a corporate henchman. I'll just make this clear one last time -- there is no overtime in my profession -- I do not clock in and out at the office. I'm not a suit trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing or Advertising tool. I stayed late because I was trying to come to a resolution of truth on the article page. I was not satisfied with your attitude of benevolent ownership of the page and I intended to right the information that was inaccurate and false. (And the use of a graphic designer is not implication of evil-corporate changes -- If anything, it adds validity to the article and ensures the logo being used is correct.) Also, "superfluous links" -- this would imply you are using your own opinion as a benevolent single user as to what is allowed. The external links I posted were from reputable student newspapers about the Ruckus service. There is absolutely no reason not to include these as they are a direct user response to the company and it's services. It seems pretty ironic that you would remove these "superfluous links" given that you have contended that the Criticism section is based/cited from a student newspaper at Syracuse. As the Mediator has pointed out, no one user "owns" a Wikipedia article. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I am here to work within the rules, regulations and established precendents of the Wikipedia community. I am only asking for fair and just editorial changes that are in line with comparable company Wiki pages. With this being said, shall I go ahead and create the company History and Product and Services sections? I will need outside help to "Wikify" the article -- I'm reading up on this, but am probably not the best canidate to attempt this. -Nroseszu 12:20, 9 November 2006 (EST)

The link in the criticism section was a cited source, whereas the articles you posted were fluff cheer leading pieces that added little to the article. "Ruckus is coming to our school this is how it works" is not a compelling reason for a link. Links should tell a story not available in the body article and should provide meaningful further reading.

Again, I never claimed to "own" the article, but as the only active regular editor of this article I do take some pride in preventing vandalism from the corporate world. Before you make any changes, I ask that you post proposals here and we can discuss what does and does not fit in with the Wikipedia style. Please try to be as objective as possible, as I will certainly try to be. - Plasticbadge 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)