Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content

Mediation Case: 2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content
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: IBitOBear 05:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Telelogic SYNERGY


 * Who's involved?
 * User:WarthogDaemon and someone else (didn't know to save the ID)


 * What's going on?
 * I'm a noob. I was adding a (critical, but balanced) review of the Synergy software on the referenced page (see submitted text on the attached discussion page) (Oh Wait, it seems you cannot as it was removed from that "talk page" mysteriously).  I've saved the text locally on basic principles.  On the first pass I did it wrong (it went in under my IP address instead of my login) and was rejected for "External Linking". The rejection arrived in about eight seconds which was not enough time to read the added material.  I didn't *ADD* a single link to the page, let alone an external one, I just left the Blatant Advertising in place and added my content in the middle.  I went back after correctly logging in and pasted my review back in (thinking I had made a procedural error) and this WarthogDaemon person jumps down my throat for "edit warring" and threatens a ban.  When I asked what was wrong with the *part* of the article *I* submitted I received no response from WarthogDaemon.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I think taking the hair trigger off the ban threats would be good, and I'd like to know if my contributions were rejected for anything other than failing to expunge the (currently existing and freshly restored) blatant advertising. I also think it would be nice if the reviewers actually read or did a diff on the page submissions before rejecting them.  I'd also like an explanation as to why the existing ad is ok, but the critical review isn't.  In short I'd like to know what exactly happened on the other side of the tac-nuke and to wonder aloud about over-zealous moderation. 8-)


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I have no need for discretion in this matter.

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



Discussion

 * This seems like a conduct dispute, not a content dispute. As far as I know, the Mediation Cabal does not involve itself in conduct disputes, as this is only informal mediation of disputes. You might want to try to talk to the editor again, and if it fails after numerous tries, you might want to file for a Request for Comment on said user. --210 physicq  ( c ) 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, we don't publish reviews, critical of the subject or otherwise (WP:NOT). While threatening a ban or block based on good-faith contributions is a bit much, they are correct that the material does not belong on Wikipedia. You may wish to submit such material to any one (or multiple other) of the sites which take reviews. Thanks! ~Kylu ( u | t )  19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)