Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-09 Ruckus Network
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Ruckus Network |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Nroseszu |
| Parties involved | Nroseszu, Plasticbadge |
| Mediator(s) | Gzkn |
| Comment | Asking to close |
[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Ruckus Network]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Ruckus Network]]
Mediation Case: 2006-11-09 Ruckus Network
[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: Nroseszu 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- ... Ruckus Network article and history -- Discussion on User page of Plasticbadge
- Who's involved?
- ...Plasticbadge & Nroseszu
- What's going on?
- ...PlasticBadge is blanket reverting all changes I make -- I have stepped in, as an employee of Ruckus, to make factual changes to the page. My post to his profile page best explains the situation:
"This is not a discussion of Ruckus Talk, this a a discussion about your practices on Wikipedia. You feel it necessary to act as the sole administrator of all things factual with respect to any/all changes I have just made. Instead of calmly editing my posting (in which I attempted to be 100% factual and accurate -- going so far as to elaborate on some of Ruckus' weaknesses), you opted to blanket revert the page back to your own message. Effectively, you have taken out all open community and communication on the matter and instead declared that you've "spent far too long ridding this article of adspeak to let it go back to that sad state." If you would've looked at my edits closely, you would realize that they were entirely void of such verbage. I am merely asking for an open dialogue -- I am not your enemy, please do not treat me as such. -Nroseszu 6:42, 8 November 2006 (EST)
And this:
"It's obvious that you have a personal vendetta either against Ruckus or for an employee of a company trying to use Wikipedia in general. I give up and will just have to file a request for mediation from Wikipedia. Anything I have posted, no matter how accurate it may be, is changed by you because you have annointed yourself the arbitor of all things Ruckus on Wikipedia. Far be it for me, an employee of Ruckus with direct knowledge of information to attempt to correct your innacuracies. -Nroseszu 7:23, 8 November 2006 (EST)"
This personal vendetta seems to be the case, as he has just updated his User Page with the following:
"I didn't intend it at first, but over time my specialty seems to have become keeping an eye on corporate pages for suspiciously positive changes. I believe fiercely that Wikipedia is not free server or advertisement space for any company and can only be trusted by the public if corporate involvement in articles is strictly watched."
I assure you, neither myself nor my company are trying to use Wikipedia for advertising -- we are merely trying to have accurate and factual information posted, have inaccuracies removed, and be allowed to post content (such as external links) that follows in the same structure as others in our same market -- ie. Zune, Rhapsody, Napster.
- What would you like to change about that?
- ...Work collectively to put up ACCURATE information. With Plastic's closed viewpoints to my changes, he is posting and advocating information on the Ruckus article page that is not only innaccurate based on our current business structure, but could be perceived as libelous information. I would love to resolve this between the parties at hand and not have to involve any legal parties -- with respect to the blatant libel.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- ...I would love to actually speak in person -- given that I am relatively new to the whole wiki editing process, I seem to be getting lapped in my editing skills, updating skills, etc. If I could give you a number to reach me, that would be greatly appreciated.
Mediator response
[edit]I will read the article and review the edit histories of both parties. I would like to remind both editors to assume good faith and read WP:NOT. As this is my first time mediating as a cabalist, help from more experienced cabalists would be appreciated. Gzkn 03:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Closing. --Ideogram 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Compromise offers
[edit]This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
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.