Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/10 January 2006/Roleplay Online

Request Information

 * Request made by: Confused.brit (request unsigned) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute with a user banned from the site. Revisions of his edits in an attempt to maintain NPOV edited back and made more negative then previous. Topic protected to drive dispute into Discussion, where the user now insists on flogging the same dead horse. Please assist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roleplay_Online
 * Where is the issue taking place?

Karzak, confused.brit. Bigbadron, Elspike, and other members of Roleplay online also added their views on the matter in an attempt to help sort this out.
 * Who's involved?

Karzak was temporarily banned from Roleplay online after a heated dispute with the moderation team. Decided that the wiki we set up as an informational resource was the ideal place to get his case reheard by trashing the wiki with claims of bias and heavy handed moderation.
 * What's going on?

In the interests of neutral point of view BBR edited the wiki to reflect that this was one user's point of veiw. This was removed and more venom added to previous comments.

I(confused.brit) stepped in after several rounds of this to rewrite his veiws to reflect all sides of the argument. Again, neutral point of veiw saught. This was again edited to solely reflect the negative view.

At this point i reverted the article back to before the dispute began, and protected it so we could discuss the edits. All he seemed intent on was browbeating us into accepting the moderators were biased.

At this point the conversations have been posted up in the discussion, The private messages between Karzak and moderators by Elspike, who is a member of the moderation team, the email between Karzak and Jase, the site owner by Karzak

We want to regain a neutral point of view. If not remove his negativity altogether, which appears to be caused by a bruised ego after a childish bout of goading suceeded.
 * ''What would you like to change about that?

No problems with this being dealt with openly. In fact I would prefer it as then you are not open to claims of bias yourselves.
 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

C.B 15:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others
I am all for a npov, confused.brit is not neutral even though he would like you to believe he is. I am perfectly willing to work toward a neutral synopsis of the methods and types of moderation that exist on RPoL that leaves out opinion and focuses on actual events.Karzak 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1) I'm female actually 2) If that is the case why did you edit out BBR's comment that views of bias were held by only one editor of the wiki thus far. The edits you made were heavy in the negative veiw, and any edits made to correct those were removed. Like my mention that as well as Heaven the moderation team could be reached in chat, to correct your assessment that heaven was the only place the mods could be reached and that moderation was hidden from public view?

Besides, looking over the logs in your case they were pushed beyond the limits of endurance. C.B 00:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

BBR started by removing my comment several times in a row, why do you support that but don't support me removing his comments? BBR has not shown a npov. As far as chat, I don't use it, never have, and on the board requests for moderators are always sent to heaven, not to chat.Karzak 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not see BBR removing the comments.I DID see you removing any edits made to neutralise your extremely negative veiws. Izehar wants to close mediation - S/He beleives that the current article has what everyone has to say - What do you think to this? Are YOU happy with what we see is a neutral pov? C.B 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it that means you don't. Well, the group is currently DISCUSSING any edits we are making right now. Please would you do us the courtesy of doing the same? Then when what you want to say can be said in a neutral manner, it can be added. (ps, Thanks for reverting that Izehar. I was just about to put a controversy message explaining the situation) C.B 21:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Karzak, I deleted your stuff because it was clearly biased against RPoL. The rest of the article was entirely neutral, containing facts about the site. Your stuff was the facts only from YOUR point of view, not from anybody else's point of view. A lot of other people had different points of view, but they never posted anything to say "RPoL is the greatest site in the world". They stuck to "RPoL was set up in... " and "RPoL has this many members... " No opinions, just facts.

For all I knew, you were some troll, banned from the site and out to stir up trouble. Your original edits were made anonymously, after all.

Later when I left your stuff in, and just edited to point out that your opinion was not shared by the other editors, you deleted that contribution. So much for your wanting to present a neutral view.

The editors of the original article were nothing to do with the management of RPoL, but are all just regular users. If you have a grievance with the moderators, please leave the rest of us out of it. --Bigbadron 22:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:bky1701
It seems User:Karzak is attempting to add unverifiable claims/original research, that also happen to be somewhat POV, particularly the "sometimes "aggravation" is defined as something as slight as requesting to go to the admin over perceived inappropriate moderation." part. The whole "Moderation" section looks more or less POV, though, and is full of original research. It's encyclopedic use is also questionable. --Bky1701 10:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)