Talk:Exetel/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Exetel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exetel/Archive 1 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Permission has been granted
We have been granted permission to use this post http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=443458#r4 in the article. If anyone interested would go through it to sound NPOV and add it in, it would be great. If not I'll just add it in with the NPOV notice. 220.233.48.200 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Objection: The above forum post reads like a total advertisement. It is not suitable for wikipedia whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.130 (talk • contribs)
WHY?? It is basically what is found on the Exetel website in the "News Section" http://www.exetel.com.au/previous_news.php
Vandalism
Please stop vandalising this page. Artorius 13:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Who was vandalising it? What were they doing?
- Someone edited it to say Bob The Builder was the CEO. -_- 220.233.48.200 14:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
An ISP does not really deserve a space on Wikipedia...I would find this as being an advertising place (Edit by User:Hail)
Citations / NPOV
Where are the citations that prove the companys financial worth, its Internet Connectivity, and the uptime. BrianSkelly 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Im also disputing the neutrality of this article, and am interested in how it can be cleaned up. I am looking for credible information in order to clean this article up to a standard that can be used for all ISP Articles. the iiNet article as an example of one which has had citations as well as its NPOV well checked. I would like to see all ISP articles look like that one. BrianSkelly 11:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Expanded reason for deletion of data added by 220.233.172.74
AussieLegend: The announcement by Exetel on 13 October 2006 relates to an internal bandwidth management process and therefore would seem to have no place in a wiki entry any more than a decision to increase the number of free email accounts or customer webspace would, despite any controversy that 220.233.172.74 believes occurred. Some of the data is in fact wrong. For example, Exetel did not announce that it "would only occur during the off peak "uncounted hours" and during times of high network utilization". It stated quite clearly that deprioritisation would occur between 12PM and 12AM, ie the peak period. The "uncounted period" is now called off-peak and covers the 12AM to 12PM period.
The announcement by Exetel on 20 October 2006 was simply a restatement of an existing policy and one that is common amongst Australian ISPs. This was clarified by Exetel in an email to members on 23 October 2006. Any controversy caused by this was the result of members misinterpreting the email. As such, this information also would seem to have no place in a wiki entry.
Edit by Macktheknifeau: There is a difference between an ISP adding more email accounts, and an ISP shaping peer to peer protocols. One is a regular occurance, and the other is newsworthy, as shown by the references in the bottom part of the article. p2p shaping is hardly "Common" in Australia, let alone for all of the planet. It made news on international websites and newspapers, and is very much a legitimate addition to the exetel article. Please do not remove these sections.
Response by AussieLegend: Adding email accounts is not a regular occurence. It is simply a change in policy, as is a decision to implement any bandwidth management practices and just because something is reported in the newspapers does not automatically mean it is worthy of addition to the wiki entry. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Entries should be factual and emotive content really has no place here.
Regarding the announcement on 20 October 2006, as stated above this was simply a restatement of existing policy and reinclusion of information on that matter is pointless. If every statement by an ISP was included the wiki entry would be overflowing.
Comments regarding alleged removal of posts on the Exetel forums are not verifiable and should not be included.
Yet another response by Macktheknifeau I have reverted the previous edit. It shows complete and total NPOV (changing controversy to "minor" among other things, is inherently NPOV). The "alleged" removal of posts did occur, and are mentioned in the articles shown at the end of the thread. Do not remove any references to them, as they have been verified and are included in those notable articles. Exetels Big_Brotheresque actions in heavy duty removal and editing posts in their own forum to "tow the party line" should not be rewarded with being accepted as the only legitimate source of information on these issues, and especially should not be allowed to be brought to wikipedia. It was established by the notable articles that these did in fact occur, and should not be edited by "AussieLegend". Whom many people belive to be an employee of Exetel, and whose minor amount of edits mostly concerned his "alleged" employer. Macktheknifeau 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttal by AussieLegend
"It shows complete and total NPOV (changing controversy to "minor" among other things, is inherently NPOV)."
That's exactly why I changed it to minor. The simple fact is, any controversy was limited to a few people posting on Whirlpool and a few complaints at the Exetel help forums. Many of the posts were by people who weren't even Exetel customers and who were simply trolling. Yes, it did make the newspapers but, as already pointed out, just because something makes the newspapers doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
"The "alleged" removal of posts did occur, and are mentioned in the articles shown at the end of the thread."
Yes they were mentioned but that doesn't actually prove that they were deleted. What was mentioned was simply heresay and unverifiable. Even if posts were removed it is the right of forum owners to moderate their forums as they see fit. Stories of deleted posts on message boards are a trivial matter and are not worth including in wikipedia content.
This rebuttal is continued under a more approriate sub-heading since we have headed away from the subject of this section.
Continued vandalism by Macktheknifeau
"should not be edited by "AussieLegend". Whom many people belive to be an employee of Exetel, and whose minor amount of edits mostly concerned his "alleged" employer."
This sort of statement is absolutely ridiculous. Macktheknifeau knows full well that AussieLegend is not an employee of Exetel and merely seeks to discredit him by stating that. His intention in editing this page in the way that he has is a ridiculously childish attempt to supposedly punish an ISP that he has some issues with. (Amongst others his account at the Exetel forums was deleted for trolling there) These issues are personal and are not relevant to the entry. He is no longer a customer of Exetel. Macktheknifeau's Whirlpool profile He has no desire to make the article accurate. His sole purpose is to "get back" at Exetel for some perceived wrong. He has had several posts at Whirlpool deleted for trolling and making personal attacks (examples - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) and has now moved to Wikipedia to continue his "anti-Exetel" campaign. His edits are emotive and one-sided.
The edits that I made improved readability and removed irrelevant data. Macktheknifeau's reversion of those edits has reduced the readability and again introduced data that is irrelevant as explained elsewhere. This vandalism must stop.
Response
"Yes, it did make the newspapers but, as already pointed out, just because something makes the newspapers doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.." In some cases, yes, and if this was a entire page just for these events, then I would oppose it. However, this is the Exetel page. Things which make major news (for this type of news, it certinaly was a major story) in regard to Exetel cannot be claimed to be "unworthy" of inclusion. The international coverage of their various actions are worthy enough of being placed in the Exetel page. These were major events in the history of Exetel, and should be included.
"That's exactly why I changed it to minor. The simple fact is, any controversy was limited to a few people posting on Whirlpool and a few complaints at the Exetel help forums.." See above. It is not "minor" and was very much "Major". It "gained" a international coverage, and large domestic (in Australia) coverage in both web and print media. It is hardly "minor" as AussieLegend claims.
Macktheknifeau 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttal "Things which make major news (for this type of news, it certinaly was a major story) in regard to Exetel cannot be claimed to be "unworthy" of inclusion."
The issue was included as filler material in a few Australian newspapers and discussed on a few websites. That hardly makes it major. You see it as major but that's only because of your demonstrated bias against Exetel and your desire to see Exetel punished because you were banned from the Exetel forums. In the grand scheme of things it certainly wasn't major news. Even on Whirlpool where most discussion occurred it wasn't even a blip outside of the Exetel forums.
Your hatred of Exetel is so intense that you simply want your distorted impression of events, inaccuracies. irrelevancies and bad grammar included, published at all costs. You won't even consider that my edits (which I put forward as a compromise) are a more accurate and objective representation. You certainly have done nothing to justify inclusion of the information regarding Exetel's anti-piracy policy but it's obvious that you need that included to avoid making the rest of what you've written look weaker.
You need to stand back and look at the issues objectively for a change. Having seen your posting style on Whirlpool, I don't see that happening, unfortunately.
Another response
Why talk about yourself in the third person "aussielegend". You do realise the history of this talk page shows exactly who edits it? And that the only person who has is "aussielegend". I am a customer of exetel. Whirlpool's "profile" data has no bearing on if I am or am not a user of exetel, and has no meaning here. My user account at the exetel forums was banned for making a normal, but critical post on the very subject that is discussed in those various articles.
As usual, "aussielegend" who presumably goes by the nickname "legend" on the aforementioned whirlpool article, has also had posts removed for "trolling and personal attacks", usually in his capacity as a hidden exetel employee, is constantly "defending" exetel, belittling those who are having problems. He is a very experienced troll, and is now trying to extend Exetels big brother standover editing tactics to wikipedia.
I have reverted HIS vandalisim, and will be requesting a block on his account if his vandalism continues.Macktheknifeau 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC
I agree with the edits that have been made by "AussieLegend", in order to remove emotional and debatable content from this entry.
I think that it behooves anyone posting to this resource, to ensure that their contribution is 100% accurate, and devoid of any augmented emotional input. ''DarkGaucho''
^ Obvious sock puppet. Only 4 posts, only made here. Why am I not suprised aussielegend would stoop this low already.Macktheknifeau 07:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Reverted article to previous version. DarkGaucho
Reverted Sock Puppet Vandalisim Macktheknifeau 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttal by AussieLegend
"As usual, "aussielegend" who presumably goes by the nickname "legend" on the aforementioned whirlpool article, has also had posts removed for "trolling and personal attacks","
Perhaps you'd care to post a few examples to prove what you say is true and not defamatory?
"usually in his capacity as a hidden exetel employee,"
As I've already pointed out, I'm NOT an Exetel employee. Exetel is based in Sydney, as are all of its employees. I live 160km away from there. Macktheknifeau has more chance of being an Exetel employee than I do. At least he lives in the same city.
Accusing somebody of being and employee of Exetel is a fairly common accusation for Macktheknifeau and his "friends" to make. If you make any posts that aren't negative and especially if you say anything that praises the ISP for some reason you are usually accused of being an employee or a "fanboi".
"^ Obvious sock puppet. Only 4 posts, only made here. Why am I not suprised aussielegend would stoop this low already."
I'm sorry but this is a sign of desperation and acknowledgement that your position is weak. Did it never occur to you that somebody else might actually disagree with you? DarkGaucho is DEFINITELY NOT a sock puppet. Exetel issues static IP addresses and anyone within Wikipedia who can see IP addresses would very quickly see that we have different IP addresses. DarkGaucho is obviously just somebody also interested in seeing that this entry remains factual and emotion and more importantly, vandalism free.
I see no point, at this time, reverting Macktheknifeau's vandalism as he will only just revert it again to his version. For the time being, I will await mediation on this and hopefully somebody else who can see Macktheknifeau's vandalism for what it is will weigh in on this discussion.
And again this vandalism goes on .
I support the reversions made by AussieLegend.
So much reported in the "Controversy" post(since reverted) authored by macktheknifeau relies heavily on selective and questionable reference, to posts made by him in other forums that where clearly misrepresented then as now, to also allude to the mentioned newspaper articles, written to make news, and clearly one sided, without including the rebuttal of the Forum Admin on the Exetel forum is deceptive on the part of macktheknifeau, to then resort to the childish ploy of name calling, resolves any doubt as to the veracity of any integrity in question here. He clearly is not an Exetel customer as confirmed by his profile page on the whirlpool forum. ...munkahugger...
Another day. Another sockpuppet Macktheknifeau 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as whether or not "macktheknifeau" is an Exetel customer or not, is in my opinion irrelevant. What's more important is the accuracy of the information he is presenting, which is, as a matter of FACT, incorrect. His alterations to the Exetel wiki (and lately to the "Internet censorship in Australia" wiki as well), have the result of presenting wrong information, which is against the point and purpose of Wikipedia. DarkGaucho
Disputed Section
In an effort to stop this from being simple vandalisim on the part of DarkGaucho or munkahugger, I shall make a gesture to bring them, from attempting to bludgeon their own opinion on the article with reverts and NPOV, to a form of mutual understanding:
You claim the article contains wrong information. Please, DarkGaucho or munkahugger, if you actually want to make an effective contribution (instead of simply reverting a legitimate edit which more than 1 editor worked on, into a section with a tonne of weasel words and hearsay. I have placed articles which back up my "claims" of the various things, including backlash, the "taronga zoo" reference, the shaping, the censorship and the response from a very large group of users. Macktheknifeau 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
How very manganimous of you to make such a generous gesture after first accusing both of vandalism and of being sockpuppets. --AussieLegend 08:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
But then footstamping and name calling is often an indication of impending failure. As macktheknifeau refers to the need of mutual understanding, and his "supported claims", and then showing bias in his posting of "supporting" links, he over looks important information such as the the post made on the Exetel forum in the form of a response and transcript of full interview with "Tom Slyck" full article http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1310 Has macktheknifeau read this interview? nowhere does he mention it.
And no I am no Exetel employee, hand puppet or anyother childrens toy.Munkahugger 09:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I make an effort to legitmately address your concerns, and you go right ahead and edit the section yet again full of unverifiable and NPOV views. That is vandalisim and I will act on it. Macktheknifeau 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you actually understand what NPOV means? From your writings it seems that you don't.--AussieLegend 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Proposed Edits to Disputed Section To Make NPOV
Although it is clear that there is a 3:1 vote in favour of the edits I offered earlier, it is also clear that Macktheknifeau is unwilling to accept that any edits, other than his own, are legitimate and will revert any edits to his own version, as he has done so many times now. For this reason I see no point in actually editing the entry however I've decided to offer the following suggestions regarding the disputed section in the hope that some form of consensus can be agreed upon by the majority of editors.
On October 13th 2006 Exetel announced in their public forums
- Change "their" to "its" - grammar
that they would be "de-prioritizing"
- change "they" to "it" - grammar
- de-prioritising - spelling
P2P traffic over other traffic running through their systems.
- Replace with "P2P traffic on its network." As written the statement is confusing and is an example of poor sentence construction.
This only occurs during the peak times of 12 midday to 12 midnight.
- Replace with "The announcement stated that, 'from mid November, approximately, Exetel will restrict the amount of bandwidth it provides to P2P traffic to approximately 50% of what all aggregated users of P2P protocols could, theoretically, use during the period 12 noon to 12 midnight each day.' Later clarification, provided on the Exetel forums in a now deleted thread, showed that this meant that P2P data would be limited to 50% of the total bandwidth available to all protocols, or about 550Mbps as of November 2006."
- This quotes directly from the announcement, a copy of which is still available at a site that I've lost the link to. It also provides clarification of what the actual announcement meant as there is no doubt that many people misunderstood what was actually meant.
Articles related to this announcement are on the Whirlpool and the Sydney Morning Herald websites.
- Replace with "Articles relating to the announcement appeared on the Whirlpool and Sydney Morning Herald websites" This is just a general cleanup of the sentence. I'd also add "prompting complaints by some Exetel customers."
Exetel has cut bandwidth to P2P applications by 50% during peak load.
- This statement is wrong and should be deleted entirely. "By" implies that if P2P applications previously used 50% of available bandwidth they would now only be able to use 25% and that is not the case. P2P applications are now limited 'to' 50% of total bandwidth. If they were using 50% before then they can still use 50% now. On the other hand, if P2P applications were using 70% previously they would now be limited to 50%.
- Regardless, the section is no longer needed because it is covered by an already suggested edit.
"They have purchased a $100,000 piece of equipment, and believe they will regain a substantial financial benefit from this action. Many customers argued that they deserved to receive the services that they paid for without any hindrance."
- This paragraph is irrelevant and serves only to bloat the entry. Knowing how much the piece of equipment costs is unnecessary and does not add anything to the entry. Nor is it necessary to know what the customers argued. That they complained has already been ascertained and there is an obvious implication that they complained that P2P de-prioritisation should not occur. Many customers complained that de-prioritisation should not occur in the 12AM-12PM period but this is irrelevant as are the complaints from people that de-prioritisation was reducing the speed of their torrents, even though P2P de-prioritisation had not officially started. There is simply no need to include everything. The entry should be factual and concise be NPOV.
- Summary: The first paragraph now reads "On October 13th 2006 Exetel announced in its public forums that it would be "de-prioritising" P2P traffic on its network. The announcement stated that, "from mid November, approximately, Exetel will restrict the amount of bandwidth it provides to P2P traffic to approximately 50% of what all aggregated users of P2P protocols could, theoretically, use during the period 12 noon to 12 midnight each day." Later clarification, provided on the Exetel forums in a now deleted thread, showed that this meant that P2P data would be limited to 50% of the total bandwidth available to all protocols, or about 550Mbps. Articles relating to the announcement appeared on the Whirlpool and Sydney Morning Herald websites prompting complaints by some Exetel customers."
As I have already stated, I oppose inclusion of the section dealing with the announcement on 20 October 2006 because it was simply a restatement of an existing policy that some members misunderstood and this was clarified in an email to members. Examination of previous discussion on this shows no attempt by Macktheknifeau to justify inclusion so I propose that it is deleted in its entirety. There is simply no need to include something that was blown out of proportion by a group of people who chose to misinterpret what Exetel said. As already said, the entry should be factual and concise. Including this section does not add to the entry at all.
Regarding the censorship of the Exetel forums, as I have previously pointed out, it is the right of forum owners to moderate their forums as they see fit. Stories of deleted posts on message boards, are a trivial matter and are not worth including in Wikipedia content.
Macktheknifeau argues that they should be included but has not provided any justification as to why they should be included. That they may be controversial to one person, in this case Macktheknifeau, isn't enough. In regard to this section I offer the following comments:
Yet another source of controversy is their censorship of their own forums,
- This statement is not NPOV. By his own admission, Macktheknifeau was banned from the Exetel forums so his sole support for inclusion of this particular section must be viewed with some suspicion.
which are now, since the shut down of their phone support,
- This statement is, at best, misleading. Phone support has not been shut down. It is limited to connection problems but even so, still exists.
There are multiple incidents of customers having their posts and threads deleted, and then being banned, after asking questions of the Exetel staff or requesting support.
- There is only anecdotal evidence to support this claim, which is also misleading. The claim can not be verified. There are references in newspapers which Macktheknifeau relies upon to support his claim but these can not be considered to be authoritative sources. In fact Exetel, in a post on the Exetel forums refuted the claims of one such article (see this thread).
Often, the "ForumAdmin" account will delete a post, ban the poster, then reply to the removed post, with no ability for the original poster to reply.]
- Where is NPOV, credible proof of this?
One example of this is the "you will still be able to get your copy of 'Debbie Does Taronga Zoo's Major Wildlife IV" post in the ForumAdmin announcement of P2P shaping, to which many users responded, and then were banned, their posts deleted.
- In fact the whole thread was deleted, apparently because of massive trolling by non-customers. There is simply nothing to prove this claim, at least not that Macktheknifeau has been able to provide.
Unless Macktheknifeau is able to justify why this section should remain, with authoritative citations, I can see no reason why the section should not be deleted.
The final part of the disputed section deals with Exetel's customer focus, not controversy. This should be under a separate section, titled appropriately.
However, the company appears to be somewhat concerned about their growing image as a non-customer focused business,
- Exetel has not acknowledged being a "non-customer focused business". That claim is not NPOV. It is very much an emotional statement. The very fact that Exetel has sought input from its customers supports a claim that it is customer focused.
and have recently release a statement on 20 areas they, and their customers, believe they should improve. These included "Change Exetel’s arrogant attitudes towards its customers", "Put in place an initial recording advising of major network issues", "Change Exetel’s “it’s not our problem” attitude to its customers".
- This is one of the rare areas where Macktheknifeau actually appears to be correct. I suggest this actually read: "In late 2006 Exetel sought input from customers on ways to possibly improve its customer focus. After consultation with customers it produced a list of the 20 most sought after improvements. These were detailed in an e-mail to customers as well as a thread on the Exetel support forums (Exetel's thread).
- Within 10 ten days of the statement's release, half of the suggested improvements already had processes put in place to implement them."
As I said, I'm not going to implement these changes. I believe they deserve some discussion and look forward to appropriate responses. --AussieLegend 11:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Response
I have included many of the above suggestions into the article. It is nice to finally have one side actually make an effort to engage in consensus instead of blatant revisionism.
I have a few issues however:
In fact the whole thread was deleted, apparently because of massive trolling by non-customers. There is simply nothing to prove this claim, at least not that Macktheknifeau has been able to provide.
So... the MULTIPLE websites which ALL issued IDENTICAL versions of the exetel statement are wrong? They made it up? It's a global conspiracy? The Exetel forum is NOT the only place that should be allowed as a "source", especially in light of the multiple instances of editing and manipulation by Exetel staff on the forum. Yes, it is the right of forum owners to edit as they see fit, but they should not be allowed to ignore what they have written just because they deleted it or moved it, or claimed it never happened. Especially in the light of overwhelming evidence.
Where is NPOV, credible proof of this?
It's not NPOV if it's true. Macktheknifeau 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have included many of the above suggestions into the article.
- In fact you only made 4 of my recommended changes consisting of 4 or so words. The changes were token changes at best (their to its etc).
So... the MULTIPLE websites which ALL issued IDENTICAL versions of the exetel statement are wrong?
- I clearly was not talking about the statement. I was talking about your claim that ""ForumAdmin" account will delete a post, ban the poster, then reply to the removed post, with no ability for the original poster to reply." The thread that you used as proof of your claim has been deleted and, as far as I am aware, there are no backups of that thread to view. You therefore can't use that thread as proof since use of non-existant proof is no proof at all.
It's not NPOV if it's true.
- You still seem to be misunderstanding what NPOV is. NPOV means Neutral Point Of View. Your statement therefore claims that it's not a neutral point of view if it's true which makes little sense. In any case, it is still a fact that even if what you claim is true, you have not provided any citations proving that it is. The only example that you provided doesn't exist. All we have is heresay from a disgruntled ex-Exetel customer who was banned from the forums that he was complaining about because he was trolling. Heresay simply isn't enough evidence to show that you are telling the truth and not just trolling.
--AussieLegend 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet more vandalism by Macktheknifeau
After his last reversion the disputed section of page was edited by DarkGaucho. Hours later I cleaned up some existing external links and added more external links that are relevant to this page. None of the work I did was in the disputed section.
Macktheknifeau's response was, once again, to revert all changes made since he last edited the page. He probably didn't even bother to check to see what had been changed. He simply changed it all back to the way that he wanted it. One of the links that I had restored had been previously deleted by Macktheknifeau without any justification. That link had been in place almost since the page was created over a year ago.
Despite what Macktheknifeau seems to think, Wikipedia entries are not the private property of individuals. They are supposed to be a collaborative effort. Macktheknifeau should not be treating this page as his own private property.
Note to Macktheknifeau: I have reverted the page to the way that I left it. If you wish to edit the disputed section, edit it. Please do NOT simply revert the whole page. If you have issues with my edits, please justify why the edits were wrong. --AussieLegend 18:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when people vandalie the page, legitimate edits may be lost. I apologise and hope that munka or gaucho stop their childish, vandalisim, which causes problems for all concerned. I shall take more care in the future when fixing their blatant, unconstructive vandalisim. I have placed warnings on their talk pages, perhaps they are children who do not realise what they are doing. Macktheknifeau 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You state that you will take more care, and then you simply go ahead and revert to your bad grammer, Americanised spelling, immature and irrelevent biased view again. This is an Australian ISP, and you are supposedly representing an Australian POV. At the very least, have enough respect for the Australian language to try and get it right.
Again you have reverted to your version of "facts", which is filled with untruths, half truths, and your angry and distorted view, which is a result of having been banned from the Exetel forums by ForumAdmin for your rude and inappropriate behaviour while posting there.
In my opinion, the edits described above by AussieLegend are correct and appropriate. I have previously reverted or edited your vandalism, but you are obviously determined to push your agenda regardless, so I bow to your superior stubborness.
I support the attitude taken by AussieLegend, and await mediation by wiki admin. DarkGaucho
Unfortunately, when people vandalie the page, legitimate edits may be lost.
Then stop vandalising the page!
I apologise and hope that munka or gaucho stop their childish, vandalisim,
What they are doing is not vandalism. It is editing and they have just as much right to edit as you do. Moreso in fact because their edits are more NPOV and factual. Merely presenting a different view of events isn't vandalism. Constantly reverting pages every time somebody makes an edit, *IS* vandalism.
--AussieLegend 04:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Macktheknife's unwillingness to fully respond to Aussielegend's proposed compromise edit's and his stubborn adherance to sabotage as a means to an end, must be moderated. I support Aussielegend's compromise edit's, and deplore the continued sabotage commited by Macktheknifeau. It must end. Munkahugger 07:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Funny I wrote the section, it was edited by other people, but when I try to prevent blatant NPOV, unverifiable original research, ignoring previous consensus and above all revert vandalisim being introduced by multiple singe use accounts, I am supposed the vandal. That's rich. Macktheknifeau 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Rebuilding "Controversy"
OK. I've removed the section wholesale and protected the page entirely because neither side's criticisms or rebutals were sourced at all. By reverting your own versions of this section back and forth, you'll never reach a middle ground. Please start rebuilding the section here statement by statement and cite 3rd party reliable sources. Remember that every statement made must comply with our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Once all sides have agreed what should be posted under this section place a {{editprotected}} tag here and someone will come along and unprotect the article and add the "consensus" version. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't believe the "Controversy" section is appropriate for this wiki at all. At best, the matters discussed were minor and of interest only to Exetel users, and for the very great majority of them (Including myself), they were of little or no consequence at all.
There are wikis in place for several other Australian ISPs, and none of them have more than a description of the company and their services, plus links to some of their subsidiary companies, and some of their services. I think something similar is appropriate for the Exetel wiki, and for the most part, that would appear to be what already exists. As far as the links are concerned, I think that many of the links which are currently at the bottom of the Exetel wiki are inappropriate and should be removed, specifically those that point to "news" stories and "blogs", as these have been proven to be full of inaccuracies, misconceptions, and outright lies, and fuelled for the most part by a "mob" mentality.
I have no idea what drives someone like Macktheknifeau and his fellows to conduct such a malicious, misinformed, and inane attack on a supplier of internet services, even if they have been wronged, and particularly after they have cancelled their service and moved-on to another supplier, but wikipedia is not the place to conduct such an attack. (if indeed anywhere is appropriate)
I look forward with interest to what others have to say on this matter. DarkGaucho
Minor Controversy - Npov. I simply want it to be "Controversy". If any descriptive words should be used, it would be "Major", since it is rare, in this area of buisness (minor ISP in australia) to have news articles written about the decisions, and the large customer complaints about it.
Biased news articles and blogs relating to this announcement and written by non-Exetel users, are on the Whirlpool and the Sydney Morning Herald websites. Biased = Npov. And there is zero point about "non-exetel" users. This is unverifiable, and has no bearing anyway. This is a point brought up constantly by those who are hardcore exetel fans, not just here, when people criticise Exetel for their decisions. People who comment are instantly derided as "Trolls" for commenting in the negative about something regarding exetel. If everyone had to explicitly use something to comment, then media and all critical comment as a whole would collapse.
while a much greater number of customers felt that the P2P users were using far too much of the available bandwidth and compromising the activities of those using other protocols. Unverifiable. About the only "proof" the opposing side will bring up is the Exetel Forums. Which is a completely unreliable source, as it's constantly pruned and moderated of ANY negative comments. The real proof is public websites such as Whirlpool, and comments on News Articles on those and other sites.
who mistakenly believed that this was a form of censorship. Many expressed their fears, because they mistakenly thought that Exetel would govern what sites they would be able to visit, and thought that some would be blocked. This turned out to be incorrect. We do not yet know if anyone was "mistaken" or "incorrect". The main concern was the lack of information, such as who would decide if something was illegal, if they started shutting down sites (for example) providing links to "illegal" content, would they shut-down google, or youtube.
one of the many ways to actively engage the Exetel staff if customer support is needed. Change "many". Email and Forum, and very limited phone support is not "many".
There are multiple incidents of malicious users of other ISPs having their posts and threads deleted, and then being banned, after attempting to goad the Exetel staff, and users who were in favour of the recently announced P2P changes, and compromising the purpose and operation of what is primarily a support forum for Exetel users. Npov and Unverifiable, blatantly so. There are no articles about banning "malicious" users, but there are about banning legitmate users posting legitmate, slightly negative questions or statements.
Most Exetel users feel this is an appropriate action for them to take. Unverifiable.
Within 10 ten days of the statement's release, half of the suggested improvements already had processes put in place to implement them. Citation.
Personally, I don't believe the "Controversy" section is appropriate for this wiki at all. Okay. So apparently I have to reach a consensus with someone who belives no consensus is neccessary and there should be no section whatsoever. A nigh-impossible task.
At best, the matters discussed were minor and of interest only to Exetel users, and for the very great majority of them (Including myself), they were of little or no consequence at all. Minor enough to gain mass media coverage, and hundreds of users actively posting their negative opinions and reactions to the events refered to in this article? Which were then either brutally banned and edited in the exetel forum, or allowed to be seen by all in the free press forums and articles.
and none of them have more than a description of the company and their services, plus links to some of their subsidiary companies, and some of their services.
What another ISP's article includes has zero relevance here. The user quoted simply wishes to quash anything which they perceive as "negative" despite it complying with wikipedia conventions.
far as the links are concerned, I think that many of the links which are currently at the bottom of the Exetel wiki are inappropriate and should be removed, specifically those that point to "news" stories and "blogs", as these have been proven to be full of inaccuracies, misconceptions, and outright lies, and fuelled for the most part by a "mob" mentality. The world according to Exetel. Anyone who disagrees with the company is a I-Troll and a liar a pig and an idiot. Exetel word is truth, and there are no dissenting voices. The entire forum is unedited, and no-one is ever banned. Your own article has been proven to be full of the above, and is fuelled by a "fanboi" mentality.
Summary The main article the group of users which includes gaucho and aussielegend, is horribly biased towards exetel, I have no idea what drives someone (although being paid by the company involved might have something to do with it) like AussieLegend and his fellows to conduct such a malicious, misinformed, and inane attack on truth and wikipedia conventions, even if they have been wrong, simply to protect the image of the company involved. wikipedia is not the place to conduct such an attack.
Macktheknifeau 06:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Macktheknifeau, you seem to have completely misunderstood what a Wikipedia admin has stated. The section, if it is to be reinstated, needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, with appropriate citations. Commenting on sections that have now been deleted is irrelevant. If you want the section reinstated you'll need to propose the edits here and make sure that EVERYTHING can be verified. DarkGaucho has indicated that he does not believe the section should be included and I agree with him. Nevertheless, if you propose something that looks reasonable with appropriate cititations and is NPOV, then I'm willing to consider it for inclusion. Regarding being NPOV:
Biased = Npov.
Ummm, NO. You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of NPOV as I have previously mentioned. For example:
I have reverted the previous edit. It shows complete and total NPOV (changing controversy to "minor" among other things, is inherently NPOV
attempting to bludgeon their own opinion on the article with reverts and NPOV yet again full of unverifiable and NPOV views.
It's not NPOV if it's true.
but when I try to prevent blatant NPOV, unverifiable original research
Minor Controversy - Npov. I simply want it to be "Controversy".
Npov and Unverifiable, blatantly so.
NPOV means NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Since you seem unwilling to learn what NPOV actually means I'll include a quote from Wikipedia's NPOV policy:
- All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.
- Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." [1]
I have no idea what drives someone (although being paid by the company involved might have something to do with it) like AussieLegend and his fellows
Repeatedly accusing people of being company employees when you know that they are not does little to encourage anyone to support any edits that you may wish to include. The same can be said of unjustly accusing people of being sock-puppets, puppetmasters, vandals, multiple singe use accounts and vandalising someone elses request for mediation on an issue. Please, stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the facts or we're never going to reach consensus and this page will remain locked forever. --AussieLegend 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hiding facts is plain wrong, there is no room for interpretation on this issue! Exetel is an Internet service provider. Any change of policies/management/etc that directly affect the concept of Net Neutrality and abuse censorship privledges should be included in the Wiki Article. It is an undeniable fact that Exetel have been heavily editing their forum by deleting geniune posts from new/old customers wanting honest answers about shaping policies that give Exetel a bad image. It is also undeniable that Exetel have been shaping peer to peer, totally attacking Net Neutrality at its core. While people can argue back and forth about what is right or wrong, these facts should not be hidden simply because it is bad publicity. Facts are facts - leave them be - while others settle their petty arguments.
--Apollo Creed 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned after being harassed offline from wikipedia, I say "NPOV" after something to indicate that it should be made NPOV, and that the current section violates it in my opinion. If all you have is useless grammar insults, and 2 paragraphs of quoting wikipedia articles from 2003 to attempt to make yourself look like you are some sort of experienced wiki user, you have a weak case indeed. You have taken a very adversarial approach AussieLegend : "You really should care what we think because without us (DarkGaucho, munkahugger and me) there is no way your edits are going to be incorporated." Whirlpool instant message sent to me tonight.
I have taken apart what the AussieLegend group of users wanted in the article, to show how they are NOT adhering to NPOV, are using biased and unoriginal research, and blatant lies. Macktheknifeau 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It is incorrect of you to state that what you have "taken apart", is something that I personally wanted in the article. As I have previously stated, I believe the controvery" section is in-appropriate and un-necessary. I merely edited what I considered to be "extreme bias" out of your contribution.
If it is deemed by others that a controvery section should be incorporated, then in my opinion it should be brief, factual, and devoid of emotional or malicious content.
I believe this is in accordance with wiki ideals and requirements. DarkGaucho
Unfortunately for you, what you have previously been shown to want in the article (and continually vandalised the page to do so), is very much NOT factual, devoid of emotion and also violates multiple wikipedia guidelines, quite the opposite in fact, you have deliberately and repeatdly sabotaged the article to conform to your own personal views on the issues at hand, instead of the real, verifiable facts shown in various articles, as written in the original, consensus built section Macktheknifeau 11:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have taken apart what the AussieLegend group of users wanted in the article,
I was not even involved in the edits that you "took apart". I suggest you try to be more accurate and less emotional in what you write.
Unfortunately for you, (etc)
The subject at hand is Rebuilding "Controversy". Please stick to that subject or we won't get anywhere.--AussieLegend 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Very Well
I submit that the version I had most recently edited into the article remain in the article. AussieLegend had agreed to it being included in the article, and I made numerous edits to my version based on his comments and requests, after this AussieLegend only edited the article further to improve any spelling or grammar mistakes (which, as the article was edited by another user, not just me, were probably introduced by them). Only after DarkGaucho and the Munka accounts, started vanadalising the page, did aussielegend decide that my version was "vandalism" and that DarkGaucho and Munka should be listened to. However, as shown above and below, it is quite possible those 2 accounts together were created by the same person, and they maliciously edited the article to be filled with bias, violating NPOV among other things.
As such, I again request that the last version of the "Controversy" section be included into the article, as AussieLegend had no problems with it, and that DarkGaucho and Munka only had malicious intent, and made no useful contributions to the article.
- note to aussielegend, I took apart what they wanted to show why they should be not taken seriously and why they are being malicious in their edits. Macktheknifeau 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What has this article become? This is seriously beyond being a joke. How can users sit idly by whilst facts are deliberately being hidden for the purpose of publicity? The "Controversy" section should not only be included back into the article, but another sub-heading should be created as to how facts were clearly being hidden on Wikipedia - but one issue at a time... Net Neutrality is something that should not be ignored when referring to an ISP. Fix this asap.--Apollo Creed 06:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I submit that the version I had most recently edited into the article remain in the article.
You'll have to do better than that. You need to include full justification and citations or a consensus won't be reached. What you write must be NPOV and verifiable. What you've so far submitted simply doesn't meet the Wikipedia requirements.
AussieLegend had agreed to it being included in the article,
Wrong! I disagreed with most of what you wrote and even if you were to incorporate every change I suggested *you* still need to provide citations.
and I made numerous edits to my version based on his comments and requests,
You made about four in total which, as I've already said, were token edits at best.
Only after DarkGaucho and the Munka accounts, started vanadalising the page, did aussielegend decide that my version was "vandalism"
Also incorrect. I disagreed with your edits from the time that you started editing here in response to being banned from Exetel's forums.
However, as shown above and below etc
Having been a regular poster at the Whirlpool forums for some time you should know quite well that the accounts in question are both individuals as, I assume, is Apollo Creed. You really need to move away from this aspect and get back to the facts. Instead, concentrate on providing citations for what you wish added and make sure that what you write is NPOV.--AussieLegend 06:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
However, as shown above and below, it is quite possible those 2 accounts together were created by the same person
Macktheknifeau, your continued assertions that my account is a duplicate account, or that I owe alliegence to any other wiki member, is becoming extremely tiresome. Please put up or shut up.
Also, your continued accusations that I have engaged in vandalism are bordering on a personal attack. Please cease your accusations. [[1]]
Apollo Creed, "Net Neutrality" is a minefield of differing opinion, and discussion of that subject is not what we are trying to achieve here.
Macktheknifeau, your previous "Controversy" contribution was full of bias, inaccuracies, and personal opinion. As such, it was not NPOV, could not be verified with citations [[2]], and not in the spirit of wiki, and I will not support it's reinstatement. If you want a section to be included in the Exetel wiki which discusses the events of your previous controversy section, then I suggest that you start to rebuild it sentence by sentence, allowing other contributors to consider and discuss each section bit by bit.
In that way, those of us who have an interest in the subject may be able to come up with a version that is accurate, verifiable by citations, and acceptable to all parties. --DarkGaucho 07:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Response
Hi, I'm Canadian-Bacon (talk · contribs · count), a Wikipedia editor and member of WP:MEDCAB. I've taken a look at this case, and I think it's in everyone's interest that we get to a resolution on the subject.
I understand that it is a contested issue for everyone involved, and that things have been getting a little out of hand lately. The first thing that needs to be remembered in disputes is that everyones abides by civility guidelines and refrains from making personal attacks against other contributors. These only end up making editors upset, and don't contribute to the solution
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 BBC reported that..." By citing specific critics, the reader clearly sees who is making allegations, which allows them to judge the situation more accurately, and allows us to keep a neutral point of view. Canadian-Bacon 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Canadian-Bacon, thanks for your interest in this matter. As you can see by previous discussion, at this time we seem to be waiting for Macktheknifeau to submit his proposed new edits. --AussieLegend 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay..
On October 13th 2006 Exetel announced in it's public forum that the company would be "de-prioritizing" P2P traffic This only occurs during 12 midday to 12 midnight. Articles relating to the announcement appeared on the Whirlpool and in the Sydney Morning Herald, criticising the company for it's stance. Exetel cut total bandwidth to P2P applications during peak load, by a maximum of 50%, starting from mid-November. Many customers argued that they deserved to receive the services that they paid for without any hindrance.
On October 20th 2006 Exetel announced on their public forums that they would become "become pro-active in the attempts to make it more difficult for users of Exetel's Internet services to commit criminal acts". They stated that specifically this would mean that specific sites may be blocked if they facilitate copyright infringement and piracy.
This announcement was also received with backlash from Exetel's customers and the general public who believed that this was a form of censorship. Users expressed fears over who would govern what sites would be blocked and if sites that can be used for legal and illegal activities were to be blocked even though they have legitimate uses. Many users argued that if Exetel were to block torrent websites that they should also block sites such as Google and Youtube as their services also can facilitate copyright infringement.
Another element of controversy is their censorship of their own forums. Users have had posts for posting a criticism of a policy or event deleted or removed. On occasions the company deletes entire discussions. One example of this is the "de-prioritizing" annoucement thread which included "you will still be able to get your copy of 'Debbie Does Taronga Zoo's Major Wildlife IV" in it's opening post by ForumAdmin. Many users responded with questions or criticisim, and were subsequently banned with their posts deleted.
That looks very similar to what you've already posted, without the corrections I suggested previously. Before I suggest any edits, will you be providing appropriate citations for the above? --AussieLegend 12:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- If it's uncited, it doesn't go in. Wikipedia:Verifiability is non-negotiable. -- Netsnipe ► 05:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That effort is a joke. Please don't insult us any further.
There is very little differance to your previous effort which was removed and totally unacceptable. Why would you now think it would suddenly be OK??? --DarkGaucho 12:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
And just so you are fully aware of my rationale....
First paragraph: Mixing past and present tense, American spelling in an Australian article, lack of citations, opinionated untruths, incorrect information.
Second paragraph: Lack of citations, misleading information.
Third paragraph: Misleading, lack of citations, incomplete and lacking sufficient information.
Fourth paragraph: Lack of citations, lack of proof, opinionated, American spelling in an Australian article, irrelevent information. --DarkGaucho 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if you don't know why American spelling is not acceptable in an Australian article (even though it is common elsewhere), contact me and I'll tell you. This discussion is already getting far too big. --DarkGaucho 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Section and Citations
On October 13th 2006 Exetel announced that from mid November, Exetel will restrict the amount of bandwidth it provides to P2P traffic to approximately 50% of what all aggregated users of P2P protocols could, theoretically, use during the period 12 noon to 12 midnight each day. [1] Articles relating to the announcement appeared on the Whirlpool and in the Sydney Morning Herald, criticising the company for it's stance [2] Customers argued that they deserved to receive the services that they paid for without any hindrance. [3]
On October 20th 2006 Exetel announced on their public forums that they would become "become pro-active in the attempts to make it more difficult for users of Exetel's Internet services to commit criminal acts". They stated that specifically this would mean that specific sites may be blocked if they facilitate copyright infringement and piracy. [4]
This announcement was also received with backlash from Exetel's customers and the general public who believed that this was a form of censorship. Users expressed fears over who would govern what sites would be blocked and if sites that can be used for legal and illegal activities were to be blocked even though they have legitimate uses. Many users argued that if Exetel were to block torrent websites that they should also block sites such as Google and Youtube as their services also can facilitate copyright infringement. [4]
Another element of controversy is their censorship of their own forums. Users have had posts for posting a criticism of a policy or event deleted or removed. On occasions the company deletes entire discussions. [5] One example of this is the "de-prioritizing" annoucement thread which included "you will still be able to get your copy of 'Debbie Does Taronga Zoo's Major Wildlife IV" in it's opening post by ForumAdmin. Many users responded with questions or criticisim, and were subsequently banned with their posts deleted. [6]
[1]Citation - test Exetel to Cut p2p Traffic - Zeropaid linked from the "Uproar" article which shows the original forum post.
[2]Citiation - The articles which were shown at the bottom of the page. Uproar as ISP selectively cuts download speed
[3]Citation - 100 page thread of backlash Whirlpool News - Exetel to shape P2P
[4]Citation - Exetel Forum announcement - Shows customers expressing fears over who would govern the sites, if legitimate sites that could be used for "illegal" activities like google or youtube would be banned.
[5]Citation - SMH - The Customer Is Always Wrong SMH Article - Uproar - Articles that includes banning of users, posts deleted.
[6]Citation test Exetel to Cut p2p Traffic - Zeropaid has text of the original, unedited accouncment referring to "Debbie Does Taronga Zoo".
Macktheknifeau 11:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion....
Your first paragraph does not address my previous criticisms. Citation No 1 cannot be considered to be a reliable source. It is merely another dubious opinionated website. A citation pointing to the Whirlpool article (which simply set-out the facts, and which you have not provided) would be acceptable to me, but not if you describe it as "criticising the company for it's stance", as it did not do so.
Citation No 2 is also an unreliable source, as it's author has not reported the information from the Exetel forum exactly, nor interpreted it correctly. eg: it states that "download speeds between noon and midnight each day will be cut by half under certain applications". This is an incorrect interpretation of the original (and subsequent) announcement(s), which stated that the amount of bandwidth available to P2P applications would be limited to 50% of the total available bandwidth.
Citation No 3 is irrelevant. Prior to Columbus's discovery of America, thousands of people thought the world was flat and anyone who sailed west from Europe would fall off the edge. The fact that those people were all of the same opinion, does not mean that their opinions were correct, nor that they merited a hearing in light of later factual evidence. The same thing applies here. This citation merely serves to show the ignorance of those who made up the bulk of postings in that thread, the ability of forum trolls to disrupt intelligent conversation and disrupt an online user group, and how easy it is to herd sheep in the direction you want them to go. See here... Troll (Internet) and here...Troll
Your 2nd paragraph continues to be misleading. Citation No 4 is acceptable to me, but only if it is accompanied by the clarification found here... Clarification ...otherwise your quote together with the citation is misleading, and would leave the reader with an incorrect interpretation of the facts.
Your 3rd paragraph is confusing, disjointed, misleading, and incorrect in it's interpretation. (eg: Exetel did not at any time claim they would block torrent websites, nor that they would block sites such as Google and Youtube)
Your 4th paragraph requires reliable citation(s). The first citation at 5 is unacceptable. It is nothing more than an opinionated blog (by the author's own admission), written by an opinionated stirrer. (by many industry watcher's opinions) The 2nd citation at 5 is by the same author.
Citation No 6 is the same link as Citation No 1, and is unacceptable here as well, due to being a "Source of dubious reliability".
As I have previously stated, it's my opinion that this entire section has no place in an Encyclopedia article relating to an ISP supplier. In particular, those portions which relate to that ISPs user help forum, which are an internal matter of relevence only to some Exetel users. --DarkGaucho 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, but when the ISP in question has engaged in editing their own forum multiple times, that the Citation 6 and 1 are much more reliable than the forum which is regularly pruned of any negative posting, troll or not. Note the typical attempt by Gaucho claiming any who is negative is "trolling" and is unreliable. Should I then say he and previous editors here are fanboi and are also biased and unreliable? Macktheknifeau 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My response to your points on my citations:
[1] It is a link from a valid, reliable website, which contains the original post by exetel. Unlike Exetel, who had deleted and reposted their thread at least 2 times, it contains the original version. It is also linked from the SMH article, and should not be discredited simply because your claim it is a "dubious website". People could claim the exetel website is "Dubious" based on it's history of editing, banning legitmate users and abusive admins.
[2] Any supposed misleading was caused by a lack of clarification on exetels part. It is not a websites fault, and does not make them "dubious" if questions that would clarify the original statement are deleted with their posters banned.
[3] Whatever you think, the citation shows that customers belived they deserved to get the full speed they paid for. It does not concern the earth being flat, and you should take up any problems of that nature with the Flat Earth Society.
[4\5] A major Australian technical writer, using their real name and writing for a major legitmate news organisation is hardly just an "opinionated blog". It is a fully researched, journalistic article named after the current vouge (blog) in online journalisim. The writer has major experience in the industry, is not afraid to pull punches, and perhaps that is why people in the "industry" (whose description probably extends to those who have been "burned" for their shortcomings by the writer) would call "a stirrer".
[6] See [1]
In short, it will be impossible to make the users who want censorship happy. They have repeatedly stated their goal is the entire removal of the article, and will stall and disagree with everything. I have posted legitmate citations, and again request the section is put back into the article and protected from the vandalisim that would inevitably occur once the section is placed back into the article. Macktheknifeau 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok despite the fact that there are obvious disagreements here, there are no needs to allege people are trolling or to allege people are are acting in bad faith. We should try to keep this conversation civil, and not make allegations against each other. Canadian-Bacon 08:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify...
I am not claiming that anyone in this discussion is trolling, and I do not require censorship.
What I am claiming, is that the Whirlpool thread which 'citation 3' points to is full of trolling, ranging from users of other ISPs with no direct knowledge(who have a vested interest in putting Exetel into a bad light), to people who claimed that the announcement specified that speeds were to be cut in half(mis-information contrary to the original announcement, and proven to be untrue), and users who claimed they were experiencing half speed due to the changes(before the changes had even been put in place).
As such, it is an unreliable resource, and therefore irrelevent to this discussion other than as an example of the ignorance and trolling abilities of the majority of it's contributors.
I will accept a citation for paragraph 1(but not the content), which points to the official announcement of this policy on the Exetel user help forum.
As previously stated, I will accept citation 4 for paragraph 2, subject to inclusion of an additional citation which points to the clarification previously discussed.
Paragraph 3 needs to be re-written if it's to be included, to remove the insinuation that Exetel was going to arbitrarily censor or block websites such as Google and Youtube, or torrent websites.
In short, what I believe is required for this controversy section if it is to be included, is accuracy of fact, reliable and factual citations, and no bias. --DarkGaucho 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Since the citations seem to be the hot topic I'll concentrate on those at this point. We can get into the nitty-gritty of the actual wording of any text once the citation issue is resolved.
[1] The text of the Exetel announcement seems accurate but as the original announcement no longer exists I can't guarantee that it is. Even if it is an accurate reproduction I agree that the site referenced can't be called a reliable source and it's certainly not neutral. The mere fact that anyone directed to the site has to scroll through paragraphs of opinion and advertising in order to get to the target of the citation, ie Exetel's announcement, is reason enough, in my opinion, why it is not a valid citation.
I disagree with DarkGaucho that the Whirlpool article is a valid alternative citation as it doesn't actually contain the announcement. It only points to the now deleted thread. There is a missing citation after Articles relating to the announcement appeared on the Whirlpool and I do believe the article could be referenced there provided that the text is altered so that the citation is used only to support a statement saying that an article appeared on the Whirlpool site. As DarkGaucho pointed out it did not criticise Exetel for its stance so it can't be used to support such a claim.
[2] This definitely references an article on the SMH website but it's hardly critical of Exetel's decision and as such I see no value in the citation or even the reference to the Sydney Morning Herald in the proposed section of the Wikipedia entry.
[3] Use of this citation would need to be balanced by referencing this thread with a corresponding alteration in the text showing that despite just over 103 pages of complaints and whining before deprioritaisation started, there have been almost no complaints and most people said there has been nil effect since it started.
The Whirlpool article should not be used at this citation because it has nothing to do with customers complaining.
[4] This citation no longer references the original announcement as that was modified a few days later and an alteration to the text would be needed to show that this is the case.
[4](second use) Use of this citation is incorrect. The correct url is [3]. It's fairly clear that the poster is being sarcastic and not seriously arguing that those sites be blocked. As such I see no point in including the citation or the references to Google and Youtube.
[5][6] These citations are inappropriate. Citations should point directly to the evidence that supports a claim, not to a 3rd party site.
I also have some additional comments regarding Macktheknifeau's response to DarkGaucho which have not been addressed above:
Unlike Exetel, who had deleted and reposted their thread at least 2 times, it contains the original version.
- It contains an unverifiable copy, not the original. It's credibility, given the obvious bias of the site, cannot be considered as reliable.
Any supposed misleading was caused by a lack of clarification on exetels part.
- That's simply not true. Exetel made the original announcement on 13 October and clarified it almost immediately. It even deleted the original, confusing thread and opened a new one but discussion (complaining, whinging etc) continued with many participants refusing to accept what they were being told.
A major Australian technical writer, using their real name and writing for a major legitmate news organisation is hardly just an "opinionated blog"
- The person in question is Asher Moses who can hardly be called a "major Australian technical writer". According to what little I can find on him he's simply a university student who freelances as a "technology reviewer and commentator", not a technical writer, in his spare time. I had to find that using Google's cached version of his website since attempting to access his website returns an error. Even his blogger profile isn't available. He doesn't even rate a mention on Wikipedia and there's very little other information available. I wouldn't be too quick to hold him up as any sort of expert or authority. I've probably forgotten more about technology than he has ever learned.--AussieLegend 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
An Alternative Suggestion
It has now been almost 6 days since the last post and there has been no further discussion. For the record, Macktheknifeau has been active at Whirlpool, having made 25 posts in the past 5 days, so he doesn't appear to have been too busy to participate here. DarkGaucho and I have made appropriate comment on his suggested section but despite this there has been no rebuttal since my post or any presentation of more relevant and appropriate citations to replace the questionable citations already presented. Therefore I think it is time to offer an alternative.
I propose that the text of the article stand as it is for the time being with the following amendments to the links sections:
"See Also" section. Delete entirely. The only link in this section has no relevance to the text as it stands.
"External Links" Delete the following:
- Uproar over ISP's slowdown - Sydney Morning Herald
- The Customer Is Always Wrong - Sydney Morning Herald
- P2P Speeds Cut in Half by Australian ISP
- Exetel to shape P2P-Whirlpool
- Providing The Fastest Possible Fault Resolution - Exetel Discussion
- 20 Exetel Customer Service Improvements - Whirlpool Discussion
All of these were added after Macktheknifeau began his disputed edits on 13 October. With this section no longer present they are no longer relevant since they relate directly to the disputed section which no longer exists.
Regardless of whether the above proposals are successful I propose that the article remain protected for at least a further 90 days to prevent a future edit war arising from this issue. --AussieLegend 06:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with these comments made by AussieLegend and endorse them. I have previously made my opinion clear that I do not think this "controversy" section (in it's previous form) is appropriate for this wiki. --DarkGaucho 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It would appear that, in the sustained abscence, of comment by Macktheknifeau, that some sort of consensus has been reached, and maybe now the page can move forward, I concur with AussieLegend, regarding the proposed deletions, and agree that it would be appropriate to protect the page for a time. Munkahugger 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have reached consensus. Therefore, in accordance with Netsnipe's instructions: {{editprotected}}
Proposed edits as detailed at the beginning of this section. --AussieLegend 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I stopped because I felt it pointless to continue in the face of such blatant lies and continually refusal to entertain anything other than existing section being removed. Everything I proposed instantly shot down without any compromise, in order to maintain the "party line".
I also will stop here to avoid having my ADSL terminated by the company in question, as happened to another person. Macktheknifeau 09:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You know very well that's not true. All you had to do was provide *appropriate* citations that were acceptable in accordance with Wikipedia policy. What you provided was not appropriate, as discussed above. And please remember, it was *you* who kept reverting everyone elses edits to your own before the page was protected.--AussieLegend 10:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Mediation still active?
Is this mediation still active or can I close the case? --Ideogram 20:46, 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 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna close the case, as it seems it's been inactive long enough. Canadian-Bacon 14:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Multimedia Deletion
My goodness, I hadn't realized the rat's nest I had set foot in before I had made my edits. As far as edits are concerned, I think the multimedia deletion policy is certainly notable given that I, living 8000 miles away, have read about this on international tech news sites. Scott5834 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- That you've only read about it now doesn't make it notable. The information has been available on the ISP's website since 2005 but it wasn't even notable back then when the process was first implemented. In the two years since then no users have complained, probably because the reason for doing so, which was notable at the time, was explained fully by the ISP and because the actions that resulted in the procedure being implemented were widely reported in Australian media. Action had been taken against another ISP by MIPI (Australia's version of the RIAA) and yet another ISP had actually been found guilty in court for breaching copyright simply for linking to copyrighted content. What you have read in the "news" is a beat-up and doesn't tell the whole truth. Simply sending an email to the ISP, as stated clearly when setting up your webspace, will remove your webspace from the automated scan and to date nobody appears to have complained. Claims such as "it's also a nightmare for customers of Australian ISP Exetel" and "many are concerned that the deletions will inadvertently remove personal or public multimedia" simply are not true.
- In any case, a large proportion of your edits consists of text lifted directly from the articles used. The occasional change that you've made does not seem to prevent these edits breaching WP:COPYRIGHT. You would need to significantly rewrite the section in your own words to avoid this breach.
- Before going to that trouble I suggest you read the earlier discussion on this page regarding edits by Macktheknifeau since they seem relevant. You might also care to read Grats Exetel,you made it onto boingboing, a thread at Whirlpool which contains relevant comments from users. Clicking on usernames will allow you to differentiate between Exetel and non-Exetel users. That should give you a better idea as to how non-notable this issue actually is. For now I have reverted your edits for the reasons above. Please do not revert them again. --AussieLegend 14:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think you need to reread Wikipedia's notablity guidelines, notably (the puns!):
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.
- You're going to need reason for deletion beyond notability. Furthermore, both sources I cited are licensed under Creative Commons permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution. So it's not plagiarism either :) Please don't revert again without reason. Scott5834 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no need for a section on the multimedia deletion policy, it has been in place for nearly 2 years. It is not a big deal and as such does not belong on the wiki page. 220.233.107.83 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The international press clearly disagrees with you. In fact, the top two news items mentioned on Google New items regarding Exetel are about this very policy.[4]. What alien measure is one to use for this? And why are all these reversions coming from Exetel IPs? Scott5834 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Exetel customers have all the facts and can see this issue for the beat-up that it is, not that there is really any issue at all. That said, there is only one Exetel IP shown on the article's page. 211.26.193.93 is not an Exetel IP. --AussieLegend 07:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
___________________________________________________________
I can't see any good reason why a two-year-old policy of a private company which has been of no detriment to any of it's users, should be included in the Wiki entry relating to that company.
Surely the purpose of a Wiki is to inform the Wiki community of the existence of the company in question, with a basic description of the company and perhaps a few details about it's structure and the services which it offers.
Anything more than that, which is in the company's favour, runs the risk of becoming an advertisement for the said company. Anything more than that, which is to the company's detriment, runs the risk of becoming a self-serving vehicle for opponents and enemies of the company.
Such was the case in the last major bout of edit-wars which occurred with the Exetel Wiki, and the same would seem to be the case here.
Why are specific policies of this ISP of any particular interest to the general readership of Wikipedia??? Should we also include the location of the coffee shop where the staff takes their morning tea??? How about the number of hours of work which each major shareholder puts in each week??? Or maybe we should include details of Exetel's online live chat support system, or the method of billing their customers.
This policy of nightly multimedia deletion is just another irrelevent example.
No person is forced to become an Exetel customer, and those who do can opt out of the deletion process by sending a simple email to Exetel. This policy has been in place for over two years, and has been of no consequence to any of Exetel's customers. (Except perhaps the dis-enchanted soul who didn't read the rules, had something deleted, and decided to post about it on boingboing)
It may be a newsworthy item for the gossip-hungry blogs who rely on generating FUD, but it's not "Wiki worthy".
Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for mis-information from an uninformed person, who by their own admission is 8000kms away from the ISP in question, and who got their information from a post by some anonymous person with unknown motives, on some foreign blog.
My opinion is that specific company policies (of ANY private company) have no place in a Wiki, which should be short and include basic company information only.
If people require more specific information, then they should be directed to the company in question, where they can find all the information they need, and any enquiries can be answered by informed, trained, and knowledgeable staff.
DarkGaucho 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Any ISP policy that makes international news is certainly "wiki" worthy. If it isn't, I'm not sure this ISP even deserves a page for notability reasons. Furthermore, this
If people require more specific information, then they should be directed to the company in question
- is ridiculous. Wikipedia should contain more than PR nonsense from the company. The specific policies of a company are in nearly every large wikipedia article I can find: Google, AT&T, Microsoft... the list goes on. Where are you getting these arbitrary policies from? They're certainly not from Wikipedia. All the information I've provided has been sourced and referenced.Scott5834 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Any ISP policy that makes international news is certainly "wiki" worthy.
- That's not true. The internet itself is international by nature so making international news is nothing out of the ordinary. The information itself needs to be notable and this information isn't. Just because it has suddenly been discovered by a US blog site doesn't make it notable. This one is really a no-brainer. The policy is two years old and so far there hasn't been a single complaint about the policy by any affected person. Yes, there apparently have been questions but if you look at the Hosting FAQ that you linked to you will see that the questions only made the top 10 in December last year and not since and the top "10" consisted of only 3 questions. Clearly Exetel customers don't see it as an issue worth worrying about and if people directly affected by the policy don't see the issue as notable, why should anyone else?
If it isn't, I'm not sure this ISP even deserves a page for notability reasons
| | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
- Several editors thought the article was notable which is why the page was kept.
All the information I've provided has been sourced and referenced.
- Also not true. Your claim that "many are concerned that the deletions will inadvertently remove personal or public multimedia" certainly isn't supported by the references that you have provided or any facts that I can find.
Reapplying Edits Before Consensus Is reached
In short, this is inapproriate. At least 3 editors do not believe that your edits are worth including in the article. I added more facts to your edits as a form of compromise but even that wasn't good enough and another editor deleted the lot. It seems obvious that there is strong opposition to inclusion of these edits and therefore we need to reach consensus before restoring the section, if the section is restored at all. Note that consensus does not mean restoring the edits after you have posted your reasons for wanting the edits included. If you restore them before consensus is reached any editor has the right to delete them and you risk breaching the three-revert rule if you keep reverting.
Regarding your earlier claim that "both sources I cited are licensed under Creative Commons permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution", you'll need to provide a citation for that. --AussieLegend 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- In the edit history on the article pages Scott5834 said:
Other editors also agree with me (also see the plural). The default policy of wikipedia is to not delete whole sections, please see Wikipedia's writing guide.
- The one editor, other than me, who edited your edits removed some of what you wrote so he obviously didn't agree with everything. Two other editors, apart from me, clearly disagree.
- As for the default policy, this applies to established sections. You are trying to add a new and irrelevant section so it does not apply. --AussieLegend 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- A sourced a referenced sections shouldn't just outright be deleted. I'm asking for arbitration on this. Scott5834
- If there are no justifiable reasons for including a ction then there is no reason it shouldn't be deleted, regardless of whether or not it is justified. The majority of editors don't believe the section should be included.
- A sourced a referenced sections shouldn't just outright be deleted. I'm asking for arbitration on this. Scott5834
- I have read the Wikipedia Guide to filing a Request for Mediation which states
Requests for Mediation should never be the first attempt at resolving a dispute
- I believe more discussion is necessary before mediation is justified, or appropriate, even despite the fact that you have now breached the three-revert rule --AussieLegend 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Based on your previous behavior in the article with other editors, I hardly think there's much else I can do but submit this to arbitration. You've also breached the three-revert rule as well. Keep in mind that further reverts will have you blocked from Wikipedia. Scott5834 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe more discussion is necessary before mediation is justified, or appropriate, even despite the fact that you have now breached the three-revert rule --AussieLegend 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you read again. I agreed with other editors and they agreed with me. It was only one person that we were having problems with.
- As I pointed out on your talk page, I have not breached the three revert rule. I reverted twice in 24 hours in an attempt to ensure the page remained the same until consensus is reached. You reverted 4 times in 24 hours in an attempt to force your comments onto the page despite the arguments against your edits being included by the majority of editors.--AussieLegend 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right, you and your alter ego DarkGaucho, who seems to only appear for Exetel edits... fishy. Scott5834 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I pointed out on your talk page, I have not breached the three revert rule. I reverted twice in 24 hours in an attempt to ensure the page remained the same until consensus is reached. You reverted 4 times in 24 hours in an attempt to force your comments onto the page despite the arguments against your edits being included by the majority of editors.--AussieLegend 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to respond to that here other than to say that I've addressed your claim on your talk page and point out that it's ridiculous and has no relevance to the issue at hand. Please stay on-topic. --AussieLegend 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Policy
Although I still disagree that the disputed section is notable and therefore believe that it is not worthy of inclusion, I have reveiewed the pages for other ISPs and decided to add some information on Exetel's policies. Accordingly, I've reworked the disputed section and merged it into the policy section. I'll add more as necessary later on. --AussieLegend 12:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Though the section stills reads a bit glowing (and POV) in my opinion, it still is a great addition. Well done! Scott5834 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- An addition which you have now seen fit to hack to pieces. Interesting. --AussieLegend 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep civil, thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's really getting tiresome. What I stated was a simple matter of fact. You were happy for the edits 2.5 months ago but now you've sought to hack the article to pieces, adding some information that is quite wrong and which ignores previous consensus that was gained with a huge effort after a mediation case, administrator intervention and full protection of the page. Instead of spouting "keep civil" every few minutes, perhaps you could show some consideration for the efforts of others, especially when they have a much better knowledge of the subject matter. All you're currently achieving is destruction of an article that everyone was happy with because you think that a 2 year old policy that nobody worries about is of some earth shattering importance. --AussieLegend 08:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, please keep the tone civil! Sсοττ5834talk 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- YAWN* Is this going to be your response every time you have nothing else that you can respond with? --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia's etiquette section. Thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, please keep the tone civil! Sсοττ5834talk 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's really getting tiresome. What I stated was a simple matter of fact. You were happy for the edits 2.5 months ago but now you've sought to hack the article to pieces, adding some information that is quite wrong and which ignores previous consensus that was gained with a huge effort after a mediation case, administrator intervention and full protection of the page. Instead of spouting "keep civil" every few minutes, perhaps you could show some consideration for the efforts of others, especially when they have a much better knowledge of the subject matter. All you're currently achieving is destruction of an article that everyone was happy with because you think that a 2 year old policy that nobody worries about is of some earth shattering importance. --AussieLegend 08:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep civil, thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- An addition which you have now seen fit to hack to pieces. Interesting. --AussieLegend 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning up article
I've tried to clean up the article some in accordance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Below is my reasoning for the more major edits:
In the past two and a half years the Exetel network has delivered a 99.98% up time reliability.
Removed as the statement has been unverified for months.
Since it began operating, Exetel has implemented various management practices that are atypical of other Australian ISPs, usually to the benefit of its customers.
Removed the last clause due to weasel words and POV issues.
- There really are no POV issues. It's a statement of fact, supported by such announcements as this. Even the decision to charge $3/GB excess after downloading 72GB in the off-peak period is a benefit. The entitlement is currently 40GB (increasing to 48GB) and yet the company is allowing people to download an extra 24GB before charging people who abuse the system. Charging abusers is seen as a way of freeing up bandwidth for people who don't grossly abuse the system while not punishing people who "accidentally" go over the limit. --AussieLegend 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Usually" is a weasel word, "benefit" is POV, and company press releases aren't 3rd party, reliable sources. Sсοττ5834talk 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't like "usually" and "benefit" find something better. The page in question isn't a press release. It's an announcement to members of the help forum. It may not be 3rd party but as a way of demonstrating that the company has made such a claim, which was the aim, you can't get any better. There seems to be some allowance for this sort of material. For example, see WP:SELFPUB --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think a company claiming its policies "usually benefit" its customers is useful for an encyclopedic article. Of course that's their view. Sсοττ5834talk 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're on about here because the company didn't make that claim. A Wikipedia editor did. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think a company claiming its policies "usually benefit" its customers is useful for an encyclopedic article. Of course that's their view. Sсοττ5834talk 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't like "usually" and "benefit" find something better. The page in question isn't a press release. It's an announcement to members of the help forum. It may not be 3rd party but as a way of demonstrating that the company has made such a claim, which was the aim, you can't get any better. There seems to be some allowance for this sort of material. For example, see WP:SELFPUB --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Usually" is a weasel word, "benefit" is POV, and company press releases aren't 3rd party, reliable sources. Sсοττ5834talk 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In a country where plan download allowances are somewhat limited and unlimited plans are virtually non-existent, Exetel took the unusual step of providing users with significant "free" data in an attempt to manage its bandwidth more effectively.
Unverified claims, weasel words and POV issues abound. The statement reads like a news release. Removed it and simply described the current policy.
- The claims are easily verifiable. There's no problem there.[2] The statements are also notable because Exetel is the first and only Australian ISP to manage its bandwidth in this manner which can also confirm at that reference. --AussieLegend 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you could point to a specific article (instead of the whirlpool page), that would help the statement. Articles from the Morning Herald have a pretty different take on the "free" bandwidth policy.Sсοττ5834talk 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That article doesn't refer to the free bandwidth policy at all. It refers to a P2P deprioritisation program that was implemented between midday and midnight. The free bandwidth occurs between midnight and midday. (emphasis added)
- A P2P deprioritaisation program that includes "free" bandwidth. Sсοττ5834talk 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's wrong. They're two completely separate things occuring at two completely different times of the day. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That happened to be implemented simultaneously as part of the same policy. Sсοττ5834talk 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No it didn't. The free bandwidth has been around since early 2004. The P2P program was implemented in late 2006, almost 3 years later. Where are you getting your misinformation from? Perhaps you should stick to a subject that you know. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Source please? 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I really have far better things to do than chase up 3 year old references to prove that your misconception is exactly that. You've claimed that the free period was introduced when P2P deproritisation was implemented and you've been challenged. It's up to you to prove that it was. The reference that you've provided does not even mention the free period. You need to find something that does. --AussieLegend 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Source please? 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No it didn't. The free bandwidth has been around since early 2004. The P2P program was implemented in late 2006, almost 3 years later. Where are you getting your misinformation from? Perhaps you should stick to a subject that you know. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That happened to be implemented simultaneously as part of the same policy. Sсοττ5834talk 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's wrong. They're two completely separate things occuring at two completely different times of the day. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- A P2P deprioritaisation program that includes "free" bandwidth. Sсοττ5834talk 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, the author of that article is a university student who freelances as a technical "journalist" in his spare time despite having no qualifications and his credibility has been questioned on numerous occasions. He is discussed elsewehere on this page. The Whirlpool site is a far more reliable source. The link given allows you to directly compare 6,863 different plans from 254 different ISPs. It's used as a primary source by several organisations. It's even referenced from Australian government websites. --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That article doesn't refer to the free bandwidth policy at all. It refers to a P2P deprioritisation program that was implemented between midday and midnight. The free bandwidth occurs between midnight and midday. (emphasis added)
- If you could point to a specific article (instead of the whirlpool page), that would help the statement. Articles from the Morning Herald have a pretty different take on the "free" bandwidth policy.Sсοττ5834talk 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
To date there is no evidence that any user has complained about this policy although in December 2006 some users did question why their multimedia files had been deleted from their webspaces despite this being explained on both the user hosting setup instructions and the Exetel Hosting Support Facility pages.
Unverified claims (probably original research) ending with a strangely defensive jab at users. Removed.
- Definitely not WP:OR. There is a thread at either the Exetel forums or Whirlpool that confirms what was written. Obviously nobody bothered to include a link because it wasn't notable enough. Funnily enough it was added only because of your desire to include website reports about a 2 year old policy that nobody really cares about (except apparently people who don't use Exetel as their ISP) and that's all we could find at the time about people complaining. What you see as a jab was simply clarification that it wasn't a big deal. It was just people not bothering to read obvious instructions or FAQs. But I agree, it should be removed. Unfortunately doing that makes the issue even less notable than it was at the time. --AussieLegend 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion resulting from the revelation has revealed that Exetel customers are unconcerned at the policy
Uses self publishable material to make an original research claim. Removed.
- Sorry but you're completely wrong. The issue was discussed in the forums at Whirlpool and in the official Exetel forums, neither of which are WP:SPS. Not only that but both discussions were referenced but you deleted the references when you deleted the statement. --AussieLegend 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- A forum posting is the definition of a WP:SPS.
- No, you're thinking of a blog, which Whirlpool is not. --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- A posting on Whirlpool is not a reference. It's a self published work. Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're thinking of a blog, which Whirlpool is not. --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone can register an account, anyone can post. These aren't reliable sources. Furthermore, analysis of the forum posts to make a general point is original research. Sсοττ5834talk 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- So it's OK when you do it but not when anyone else does it? You've referenced the techdirt article to advance your point of view when it doesn't even mention Exetel. The only way you could link that article to Exetel is original research. Had I posted a statement without providing verification then yes, what I posted might have been original research but links to both threads were provided so the reader can make his or her own decision as to the validity of the statement. (see Why sources should be cited) --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, forum postings aren't verifiable sources. The Wikipedia policies are pretty explicit in this regard.Sсοττ5834talk 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that in WP:SPS. Blog entries, such as from sites like Boing Boing most definitely are not acceptable as sources --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's an argument out there that since BoingBoing used to be a magazine, contains some of the more influential people in technology, and is labeled on Wikipedia as a "publishing entity" probably puts it in a class of its own. Sсοττ5834talk 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:SPS, which you chose to cite, is clear. Blog entries are not acceptable as sources. Boing Boing doesn't get an exemption just because you want it to have one. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think BoingBoing's status is murkier considering the reasons I elucidated earlier. Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No it isn't. WP:SPS is clear. Blog entries are not acceptable sources. --AussieLegend 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think BoingBoing's status is murkier considering the reasons I elucidated earlier. Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:SPS, which you chose to cite, is clear. Blog entries are not acceptable as sources. Boing Boing doesn't get an exemption just because you want it to have one. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's an argument out there that since BoingBoing used to be a magazine, contains some of the more influential people in technology, and is labeled on Wikipedia as a "publishing entity" probably puts it in a class of its own. Sсοττ5834talk 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that in WP:SPS. Blog entries, such as from sites like Boing Boing most definitely are not acceptable as sources --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, forum postings aren't verifiable sources. The Wikipedia policies are pretty explicit in this regard.Sсοττ5834talk 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- So it's OK when you do it but not when anyone else does it? You've referenced the techdirt article to advance your point of view when it doesn't even mention Exetel. The only way you could link that article to Exetel is original research. Had I posted a statement without providing verification then yes, what I posted might have been original research but links to both threads were provided so the reader can make his or her own decision as to the validity of the statement. (see Why sources should be cited) --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Exetel may not be the only ISP implementing this policy, with some other ISP's also automatically removing certain file types from going onto users' web sites (particularly MP3's)
Unverified claims and weasel words.
However, Exetel have been the most public in announcing their policy to users
Unverified claims and/or original research. In general, I think this article is coming along, but we really need to make sure we use reliable, third-party published sources instead of company press releases. I look forward to everyone's input! Sсοττ5834talk 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Take out "most" as you did in your first edit and you are wrong. The statement was referenced but you deleted that reference as well.
- I'm not sure what this is in reference to? Sсοττ5834talk 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You said the claims were unverified. That was wrong. There was a citation for the claim that you deleted. I agree that "most" should be removed from the sentence. You did that on the very first of your recent edits. As for using "company press releases", as a way of showing that the claim is true a direct link to the claim is the best way of showing it. If you start deleting everything that isn't supported by reliable 3rd party references Wikipedia would be empty. There are plenty of sources that somebody calls reliable that somebody else doesn't. --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- To quote the admin Netsnipe above, "If it's uncited, it doesn't go in. Wikipedia:Verifiability is non-negotiable. Sсοττ5834talk 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You said the claims were unverified. That was wrong. There was a citation for the claim that you deleted. I agree that "most" should be removed from the sentence. You did that on the very first of your recent edits. As for using "company press releases", as a way of showing that the claim is true a direct link to the claim is the best way of showing it. If you start deleting everything that isn't supported by reliable 3rd party references Wikipedia would be empty. There are plenty of sources that somebody calls reliable that somebody else doesn't. --AussieLegend 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this is in reference to? Sсοττ5834talk 03:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, what we are down to is that some stuff that shouldn't be there has been removed, some stuff that shouldn't have been removed has been removed and there's still stuff in the article that should come out now that you've quite justifiably removed the stuff that supported it. I note that you haven't addressed a number of other changes that you've made. --AussieLegend 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are the things you deleted but forgot to mention:
what has variously been called the "free", "uncounted" and now
These terms are sill in common usage and are notable because they contribute to the history of bandwidth management practices used by Exetel.
- They seem trivial and muddy the issue. I think a simpler description is clearer and more encyclopedic. Sсοττ5834talk 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As of 1 July 2007, the off-peak period extended from midnight to midday AEST and the allowance within this period was 40GB per month. On 17 September 2007 Exetel announced that, effective 1 November 2007, the allowance would increase to
It's still September, not November, and it's inappropriate to delete current information while leaving in information that doesn't come into effect for another 6 weeks. The information regarding the new allowance was included to demonstrate that increases in the off-peak allowance is an ongoing process. It's a process that is notable because other ISPs do not practice it.
- Ah, didn't notice the date, that should probably be re-added. Sсοττ5834talk 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
this policy was reported on some US websites -> this policy was more widely reported
"Widely" is really an inappropriate term to use. The article at techdirt was about "the ongoing case of Viacom against Google" and Exetel's policy was used only as an example of the problems caused by a lack of safe harbour provisions. In fact it was used as an example behind what had happened to another ISP. Exetel wasn't even mentioned by name. Exetel's policy wasn't reported, the policy of an unidentified ISP was used as an example. Hardly notable.
- The story was picked up by 3 separate tech sites and an Australian newspaper. And again, notability guidelines do not apply to article contents. Sсοττ5834talk 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Correction: The story was picked up by a blog site which WP:SPS excludes as a reliable source. The policy was mentioned by techdirt but Exetel wasn't named. Linking Exetel to that article is WP:OR so that's out. That leaves just ars technica and the Age which are two reports that are completely independent of each other. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the term "original research" is being stretched here. Can you point to a passage in the policy that forbids this? Sсοττ5834talk 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it's being stretched when *YOU* want to add something that doesn't fit a policy that you chose to cite. WP:PROVEIT states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The article doesn't mention Exetel by name so it can't be used as a source. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, are we arguing the source or the actual statement in the article? I think you're confusing the two. Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- We're arguing that the techdirt article is not an acceptable source because it doesn't mention Exetel. --AussieLegend 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, are we arguing the source or the actual statement in the article? I think you're confusing the two. Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it's being stretched when *YOU* want to add something that doesn't fit a policy that you chose to cite. WP:PROVEIT states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The article doesn't mention Exetel by name so it can't be used as a source. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the term "original research" is being stretched here. Can you point to a passage in the policy that forbids this? Sсοττ5834talk 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Age article didn't appear until 3 weeks later and it was apparently the only Australian media that picked it up and it did so only because an Australian, whose relative didn't bother reading instructions, had a file deleted.
- Regardless of how it was picked up, this is the only 3rd party, reliable, Australian newspaper quoted in the article. This is not a good comment on the state of the article. Sсοττ5834talk 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it demonstrates how insignificant the issue was. Nobody cared about it except you and you weren't even aware of the Age article until recently. The Age article is a poor example because all it demonstrates is thaty a user didn't read clear instructions. I am an Exetel user so I can say that with authority. I'll even do a screengrab of the user page to show you how clear it is if you want. Obviously you won't be able to use it on Wikipedia but hopefully it might demonstrate to you what a waste of time this is. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- "I am an Exetel user so I can say that with authority" is explicit POV. Sсοττ5834talk 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. We don't intend using it in the article so I can say it as much as I want. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Using it as justification for an edit is POV. Please use sources. Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're trying to justify use of the article as to the extent to which there was coverage. While it mentions the policy the article is really unrelated to the coverage because it's not actually addressing the policy. The ars technica article addresses the policy directly. The Age article only reports the policy because somebody couldn't follow instructions on the user webspace setup page. If you really want to include it the article should be under a section about how one Exetel user failed to RTFM when they set up their webspace. I've reproduced a copy of the instructions at WP:WQA. --AussieLegend 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Using it as justification for an edit is POV. Please use sources. Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. We don't intend using it in the article so I can say it as much as I want. --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- "I am an Exetel user so I can say that with authority" is explicit POV. Sсοττ5834talk 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it demonstrates how insignificant the issue was. Nobody cared about it except you and you weren't even aware of the Age article until recently. The Age article is a poor example because all it demonstrates is thaty a user didn't read clear instructions. I am an Exetel user so I can say that with authority. I'll even do a screengrab of the user page to show you how clear it is if you want. Obviously you won't be able to use it on Wikipedia but hopefully it might demonstrate to you what a waste of time this is. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of how it was picked up, this is the only 3rd party, reliable, Australian newspaper quoted in the article. This is not a good comment on the state of the article. Sсοττ5834talk 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It had nothing to do with the boing boing post at all which, interestingly, wasn't discussed by anyone who read it.
- Boing Boing instituted comments a month ago, well after the post was published. Sсοττ5834talk 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the reader can't know that withe resorting to original research. All the reader can go on is what is on the web page now. --AussieLegend 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the term "original research" is being stretched here. Can you point to a passage in the policy that forbids this? Sсοττ5834talk 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deja Vue! If you intend to use it as a reference you have to accept what it says and it says that there are 0 comments about that article. If that doesn't suit your point of view then don't use it as a reference. You can't anyway because it's a blog entry and not acceptable as a reference under WP:SPS --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to get this straight, we're using the number of comments an article has generated to determine its merit? Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're completely off the track. We're using the number of comments an article has generated to determin how insignificant the community sees the issue. --AussieLegend 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to get this straight, we're using the number of comments an article has generated to determine its merit? Sсοττ5834talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deja Vue! If you intend to use it as a reference you have to accept what it says and it says that there are 0 comments about that article. If that doesn't suit your point of view then don't use it as a reference. You can't anyway because it's a blog entry and not acceptable as a reference under WP:SPS --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the term "original research" is being stretched here. Can you point to a passage in the policy that forbids this? Sсοττ5834talk 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the reader can't know that withe resorting to original research. All the reader can go on is what is on the web page now. --AussieLegend 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What we have is one post that nobody seemed bothered enough about to discuss, another post that discusses the issue, another that discusses it in passing without even mentioning "Exetel" and a final one 3 weeks later that isn't directly related to the first three. Even taking into account the story appeared on four websites, that isn't significant coverage and therefore the policy certainly doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. Given also that other editors have previously agreed that it isn't notable there seems more than enough justification in removing all text on that issue, especially since the biggest supporter of its inclusion has already deleted most of it. --AussieLegend 03:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please note in the notability guidelines that they "give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia." Again. we shouldn't be looking at notability guidelines to edit the article. Verifiable sources and clear, NPOV writing is a lot more important. Sсοττ5834talk 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd disagree with you. I can immediately show you where an administrator has deleted a section of an article because on non-notability. --AussieLegend 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please do! Sсοττ5834talk 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here! Check the page history.
- I see a page about a high school... 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's very good. That's the first thing you're supposed to see but then, if you follow the direction that I gave and look at the edit history you'll see why that edit was made. This link might make it clearer for you. If you look at the reason given by Orderinchaos (an administrator) for the edit you'll quite clearly see
removed non-notable information about cheerleading squad.
- You might also care to note what (Wikipedia:Notability says.
These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles
- This indicates that while notability guidelines don't limit the content they are relevant to topics within the article.--AussieLegend 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- A single edit by a single admin, and you're extrapolating (ie fabricating) policy based on that? No, the policy is WP:N which clearly and explicitly states [t]hese guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles. Please be sure to read a policy before citing it. This means that article content is in no way limited by WP:N. I don't know what you think "topics" means, but it means what gets to be its own article. Article content is not governed by WP:N. --Cheeser1 07:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- "A single edit by a single admin, and you're extrapolating (ie fabricating) policy based on that?"
- No I'm not. That was just a single example that I could find very easily. I've seen others but I'd have to go looking for them. If you can't trust an administrator to know policy, who can you trust? --AussieLegend 11:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The policy. Please look into it. Admins are not infallible and you're taking one edit out of context to support another (which is absurd). --Cheeser1 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- A single edit by a single admin, and you're extrapolating (ie fabricating) policy based on that? No, the policy is WP:N which clearly and explicitly states [t]hese guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles. Please be sure to read a policy before citing it. This means that article content is in no way limited by WP:N. I don't know what you think "topics" means, but it means what gets to be its own article. Article content is not governed by WP:N. --Cheeser1 07:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's very good. That's the first thing you're supposed to see but then, if you follow the direction that I gave and look at the edit history you'll see why that edit was made. This link might make it clearer for you. If you look at the reason given by Orderinchaos (an administrator) for the edit you'll quite clearly see
- I see a page about a high school... 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here! Check the page history.
- Please do! Sсοττ5834talk 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit War?
AussieLegend, you've violated the Three-revert rule for this article. I think working this out on the talk pages we can figure this page out? 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please try to act like an adult. Placing ridiculous warnings on user pages and claiming others have breached various rules when you've constantly ignored the rules yourself really doesn't help your credibility any. You tried this previously in June when you requested mediation that was rejected by an admin because you used it as a first resort to push your edits through. Let's concentrate on the article and stop the kids games please. --AussieLegend 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please try to keep civil, thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deja Vue! *YAWN* --AussieLegend 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia's etiquette section. Thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please try to keep civil, thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should take a break from editing the article to let things simmer down a bit? Sсοττ5834talk 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you've edited the article again only 10 hours after suggesting this. Don't you think a few days might have been more suitable, especially given your actions elsehwere? --AussieLegend 05:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you both take a break. The edit warring on this page is out of hand. I will not, in this venue, attempt to place the blame on either or both of you in any fashion. You may both be responsible, equally or not, it doesn't matter. Scott has suggested several alternatives to edit warring, including taking a break or consulting other users. But AussieLegend, you interpret these measures as attacks against you or "kids [sic] games." Scott is attempting to use every resource at his disposal to avoid edit warring. AussieLegend, I suggest you attempt to do the same, at least a little bit. I also would ask that you conform to standard practice on talk pages - do not dissect other users' comments. You are not allowed to edit or rearrange other people's comments, and this includes dissecting them as you have a habit of doing. It becomes virtually impossible to follow a discussion, splits a reasonable thread into dozens of sub-threads, and makes the conversation into a tit-for-tat argument. It makes attempting to help resolve this conflict almost impossible, because no third party can enter this discussion without spending far too long trying to figure out who said what, when. --Cheeser1 07:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- "I suggest you both take a break. The edit warring on this page is out of hand."
- Well, don't look at me. I've made precisely 6 edits since Scott returned from whatever he was doing. He's made 26, 7 of which have been since I last edited and 6 of those have been since he suggested taking a break. I've stayed out of the edit warring.
- "Scott is attempting to use every resource at his disposal to avoid edit warring"
- I suggest that you look at his edits. They tell a different story. Other editors have been able to add very little to the article while all of Scott's edits seem to be exactly where he wants them.[5] --AussieLegend 12:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The number and time of your edits is not at issue - you're both heavily editing this article and the related discussions. The point is that you both need a break, or that you both need to cool down in some fashion. You may expect the edits to speak for themselves, but you've spoken for them, and you've been uncivil and have not assumed good faith. That tells me that you need to cool it. I've asked you politely, and explained that I'm not passing any judgment on who's responsible - stop trying to shift the blame to someone else. --Cheeser1 16:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- ^ "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.
- ^ "broadband choice". Whirlpool. Retrieved 20 September 2007.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help)