Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-20 Gracenote

Mediation Case: 2006-11-20 Gracenote
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Steve Scherf 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Gracenote


 * Who's involved?


 * What's going on?
 * The Gracenote page has been hijacked by those only interested in presenting their side in bad faith. These "editors" have presented inaccurate and false information about Gracenote which amounts to libel.  These editors constantly revert a neutral description of Gracenote to their biased, inaccurate and false version.  In particular, they offer false information regarding Gracenote's litigation history and have removed all links to every court order and ruling which provides factual and true information regarding Gracenote's litigation history.  Furthermore, these editors engage in making personal attacks by calling one of the founders of Gracenote, Steve Scherf, such names as "SteveSmurf" and "dirty". They are not neutral parties in any sense.

.
 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Request for mediation in order to have the Gracenote page return to its neutral POV that is accurate, unbiased, and supported by factual and legal documents. Stop further reverts and vandalism by those acting in bad faith to only present their highly biased and false information about Gracenote. Above all, we would like the Gracenote page to resemble the All Media Guide page in its neutrality and succinctness. I use this page as an example, because they are a competitor of Gracenote and are very similar in what they do as a company. Yet, there are no references to competitors, to their legal history (which has its sordid points), or to negative, harmful, or seemingly incorrect information. In addition, there are separate pages for different aspects of the company, such as products and company features.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Yes. I can be contacted at [mailto:sscherf@gracenote.com sscherf@gracenote.com]

Mediator response
I will act as mediator if the parties are still willing to participate. It seems that the slowness of the Cabal response means we may have been left behind. I'm posting a note on Talk:Gracenote now, and will post a real 'mediator response' if we're still needed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion

 * Dear Mediation Cabal,

This is nearly identical to the mediation request from user:Sooahs a month ago which Stifle successfully ended by semi-protecting the article. Scherf is one of the founders of Gracenote (Sooahs and Vskelton also work for Gracenote in various capacities) hence highly motivated to present a favorable view of his company. While Gracenote is a useful service for many of its users, much of its history is also highly-controversial. The company is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote itself in an non-NPOV fashion by "hi-jacking" its own article. This is not correct behavior on Wikipedia and should be prevented. SteveSmurf 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Editor blocked for bad faith attack name and impersonation. 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Beware of vandal comment above
Yes, this mediation request is nearly identical to the one posted by user:Sooahs because she was denied mediation due to being a new user. I have reinitiated the mediation request because I am not a new user. There was no successful outcome of her request. The page was temporarily locked from modification by new users, that's it. That's not mediation, nor is it any solution whatsoever. The User:SteveSmurf is one of the people abusing Wikipedia and the Gracenote page. This person is using a name that is clearly created for the sole purpose of mocking my name, and nothing more. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, as described here: Username. This is offensive, but does serve to illustrate how this user, and others editing the Gracenote page, have an agenda against Gracenote and are using Wikipedia as a weapon to attack Gracenote. Because there are apparently at least several malicious users here (unless they are actually one or two masquerading users), there is no way that legitimate editors can keep the page neutral. These vandals should be barred from further edits, and the page locked. Otherwise they will just acquire new user names and continue to perpetrate vandalism and to push misinformation on the Gracenote page. But mediation is worth a try, though given their attitude it's very doubtful any of them would do so in good faith. Hence the attempt above to sabotage my mediation request. Steve Scherf 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Scherf, you have been asked several times to point out where the factual errors are in the Gracenote article, and have responded by making broad changes to the article and deleting many other edits and relatively important pieces of information in the process. Your edit summaries are often misleading. It has been pointed out to you at WP:PAIN that since you are, if you really are Steve Scherf, an employee of Gracenote, you are vulnerable to WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWN issues. You claim others are vandals and "attackers", without responding to the original request to clarify where the factual errors are located in the article.  It would seem that you are the one trying to use Wikipedia for your own purposes. I have no problem with Wikipedia becoming more accurate, but I do take issue to the kinds of changes that you and your colleagues are trying to make to the Gracenote article since they do not accurately reflect a NPOV and selectively remove key facts about Gracenote, seemingly to paint your company in a more positive light.  If there really are problems with the article, why don't you identify those errors and allow others to make the changes, without the wholesale deletions? Fatandhappy 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediators: Please reread the comments I have repeatedly left in the Talk:Gracenote page. Fatandhappy: You and others have reverted numerous corrections that were supported with fact (while bogusly claiming they were unsupported), and have shown yourselves to be exceptionally biased against Gracenote. Your statement here that I have not supported my changes with fact and have not explained the factual errors is totally bogus. I and others have pointed out as many as we can, without filling an actual volume in the process. You have as little business editing that article as you claim we do. Anyone reading this: Please read the entire Talk:Gracenote page for the facts. But the fact that Fatandhappy has tried to scuttle my mediation request here, rather than embracing it, illustrates very well that there is no true desire on his/her part to reach a fair and accurate Gracenote page. Steve Scherf 02:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the entire Talk:Gracenote page, I am able to find lots of fire and brimstone, but little support for the factual errors and bias you claim to have detailed. Have I overlooked something? Fatandhappy 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then either you're being disingenuous or you didn't actually read it. Note multiple mentions that the statement to the effect that commercialization of CDDB angered former licensees is logically impossible, since there were no licensees before commercialization; how could there be? Note multiple mentions of links to court documents that prove the explanation of the outcome of the MM trial in your text is wrong (if you don't understand the documents, just say so). Note the explanation that Microsoft was never a Gracenote licensee, though your text claims they were, so they couldn't have ever ceased to be a Gracnote licensee. And so on. As I've said elsewhere, your version of the text has literally DOZENS of errors. And that's probably a conservative estimate, and I do not feel the need to discuss all of them. Especially not with you, given that you've already shown no interest in mediation, and you've proven yourself to be disingenuous in other ways (such as reverting text with misleading comments as to why). How about actually reading the links that provide the input for the correct version of the text that I and others are trying to get in place before you (again) proclaim it unsupported by the facts. Actually read them, including the court documents and the unabridged Wired interview. Why am I bothering? I've already been down this road a half dozen times, but it's clear you don't actually care. Steve Scherf 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will ignore your rudeness and lack of civility to focus on points you have brough up. Moving forward, please avoid rudeness as it does not become you. Since you have brought up similar points (and the same verbal bullying tactics) at the Talk:Gracenote page, I'll respond over there. 219.110.29.186 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Request withdrawn
I would like to withdraw this request, as I have been advised that it is unlikely anyone will elect to mediate. Not sure how to do that, other than to leave this message here. Steve Scherf 04:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

On Slashdot!
This dispute has made its way onto slashdot! See:

Kim Bruning 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)