Talk:Exetel/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Permission has been granted

message: Where are the citations that prove the companys financial worth, its Internet Connectivity, and the uptime. BrianSkelly 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations / NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Expanded reason for deletion of data added by 220.233.172.74

message: "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)
thread_title: Continued vandalism by Macktheknifeau

message: 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)
thread_title: Another response

message: 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)
thread_title: And again this vandalism goes on .

message: 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)
thread_title: Disputed Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Yet more vandalism by Macktheknifeau

message: 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)
thread_title: Very Well

message: Hi, I'm , 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)
replies: text: If it's uncited, it doesn't go in. Wikipedia:Verifiability is non-negotiable. --   Netsnipe  ►  05:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Response 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Conscious 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Alternative Suggestion 

message: Is this mediation still active or can I close the case?  --Ideogram 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation still active? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: An addition which you have now seen fit to hack to pieces. Interesting. --AussieLegend 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep civil, thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Again, please keep the tone civil! Sсοττ5834talk 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia's etiquette section. Thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy