Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Brighton (external link)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Mediated By: Wikizach Comments: if I see no response from all parties, I will close this case in 6 hours

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-04 Brighton (external link) 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-04 Brighton (external link)

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Deon555|talk|e 00:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Cabalist) on behalf of Kieran T, talk

Where is the issue taking place?

Brighton, and the talk page

Who's involved?

One or more anonymous users and User:Brightonkid (who has no other edits), plus various frequent editors of the page, including Kieran T

What's going on?

An external link is repeatedly being added, always with an unhelpful text label (just "Brighton") and often at the top of the list of links. It has frequently been reverted by various different (mostly non-anoymous) editors because I believe there is consensus that the link is spam. It is a borderline candidate for inclusion in the light of WP:EL
The (small) consensus in a straw poll is that the link should go, but one (probably not more) anonymous users, possibly the same person as the named user above, keeps adding the link. They have recently engaged in the discussion page, but whilst doing so, over-ride the poll and deride the page as "drivel".

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like the link to be removed, and the user to be asked (officially) not to replace it unless the consensus (or page content) changes; certainly not at the top of the list and with a poor text description. Indeed, I find it very hard to consider the user is acting in good faith and feel a block warning may even be in order.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I have been open about my disagreement with the user and have received no direct personal abuse so far. However, I can be contacted by email if neccessary (please see my user page.)

[edit] Mediator response

Since the party that brought this case is not present, I will close this mediation request within 6 hours. Thank you. WikieZach| talk 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You should go ahead - the website hosting the link in question has actually been designated as spam and added to the Wiki spam filters, so it's a moot point now. Gsd2000 18:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Promote the disputed link

'www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm'

to the top of list, or at least above those links that are on specific topics on Brighton, rather than on Brighton, and entitle the link

'A guide to Brighton'

It may seem a dumb question: But how is one meant to participate in this mediation process, sign up for it etc.

[edit] Discussion

It may be useful to refer to the discussion which has already taken place; please be aware of the existence of the previous mediation page in addition to Talk:Brighton and User talk:Kieran T – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not be able to mediate this case for one week for personal reasons. I will return Sunday evening (6pm Eastern Time) Sorry for the upcoming delay. WikieZach| talk 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the summer seems to be causing a problem for this one: I'm off on Thursday for two weeks, and I'll be in a place with no telephones nor GSM mobile signal, never mind internet. But really, I don't think there's much more to be said because over on the Brighton talk page it's all become very disingenuous, and I'm pretty sure that there's nothing much more I can say there. I don't mean I'm withdrawing from the mediation; merely that I feel like I and a small number of other editors are being directly personally attacked now, by anonymous editors with a remarkably similar writing style, who're making the claim that we editors are claiming some sort of ownership of the article. I really don't see any point in fighting that because it's ridiculous. This is a collaborative project. Making an effort is a good thing. People who like to complain should contribute instead. So... all I can suggest is that everyone interested have a good look over the Brighton talk page, as it stands today at least ([1]), and make up their own mind. Thanks to all who've taken an interest. See you in September. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think the writing styles are similar, and you would be right to do so, have a look at this [2]. It would appear from this that it is the owner of the site himself who is so keen to have the link maintained, as it has the very same writing style.

--Bcnviajero 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Having stumbled across this issue on the Brighton talk page, and done some investigation, I don't think this even deserves the time and attention of a mediator. This is a simple case of Wikipedia rule-breaking and the user should simply be banned. Case as follows (thanks to Bcnviajero for the groundwork):

• [9:37am] 213.166.17.21 added the link back, then at [9:43am] Brightonkid added comments backing up the revert to the talk page.

• As Bcnviajero mentions above, Mr. Keith Parkins (the owner of the site being linked to) has put up this article on another site: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/346947.html. In it he rhetorically asks "How many monkeys does it take to edit an encyclopedia?". Is it mere coincidence that on the Brighton talk page, Brightonkid asks a remarkably similar rhetorical question "How many monkeys does it take to create an encyclopedia?"

• Also in this article, Mr. Keith Parkins writes "Similar problems have arisen on a page on Aldershot". Lo and behold, we find 213.166.17.21 embroiled in a similar argument on the Aldershot talk page, and this user is also accused of sockpuppetry there. The plot thickens if we read http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327726.html, another "news article" written by a Mr. Keith Parkins (about Mr. Keith Parkins), saying that he "has been threatened with an Asbo" (by Rushmoor Borough Council). For those not familiar with the local geography, please see the relationship between Rushmoor and Aldershot here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=aldershot,+uk+to+rushmoor&ie=UTF8&om=1.

The link between 213.166.17.21, Brightonkid and the author of the site in question has therefore been clearly established. This case simply does not deserve mediation. Gsd2000 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"This case simply does not deserve mediation" Quite so. Desist from arbitrarily deleting a perfectly relevant one-line link and this completely artificial "problem" will be resolved. Just why a handful of people with no demonstrable knowledge or expertise in the subject involved are taking it upon themselves to make such an extreme and absurd fuss over something so innocuous as a one-line link (and attempting to bully the contributor concerned)should itself be investigated. -- Bystander

I would just like to point out that "Bystander" is not a real user name, and the above comment came from 194.221.133.226 If anyone wishes to see how this IP address links with the others associated with sockpuppetry, please see here: User talk:Wendy-wu#Sock Puppetry. {Removal of my addition to this talk page, Bystander, constitutes vandalism). Gsd2000 11:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Immaturely unimpressive bullying attempt noted. It does not, however, distract from the accuracy of my observation that you and your friend are interested only in pursuing a silly and unbalanced personal vendetta against contributors that you happen not to like. Your obsession over the addition of one single link has become a matter of your ego, and as such is not helpful to the project. -- Bystander