Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 Brighton (external link)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-02 Brighton (external link)
Please observe Wikipedia: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 Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
[edit] Request Information
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Brighton (and Talk:Brighton)
- Who's involved?
- One or more anonymous users and User:Brightonkid (who has no other edits), plus various frequent editors of the page
- 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
- Hi Guys, my name is Deon, and I'll be handling your Mediation request. Firstly, i want to make clear some things. This is my first mediation, I want you to know and understand this, and please, if you don't want someone as new as me handling your request let me know now, and I'll get someone else. Secondly, please follow the rules, and don't resort to name calling etc. Third and finally: If you are unhappy at all from the outcome, please see my "superior" here
-
- Okay, please sign your name here to accept these three things and to start mediation
- Mediator: Deon555|talk|e 06:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Participant One: Thanks for bravely stepping up to the plate! ;-) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Participant Two:
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Looking at the web page of one of the participants, where the so-called mediator has posted a comment, it looks like minds have already been made up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.22 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 August 2006.
- Looking at the talk page of the article (Talk:Brighton) it looks as though somebody is just trying search-engine spamming now, with a lot of identical external links to the site in question. And they're becoming increasingly offensive too, both by direct insults (e.g. "how many monkeys does it take") and by suggesting that the hard work of a few volunteer editors is in fact some kind of ego trip. Really, this is a big stretch of the presumption of good faith, and looks a lot like classic "troll" behaviour.
- I appeal to the editor(s) concerned to please try to address the basic questions and not get into a diatribe of the sort posted on the Brighton talk page. The real issue is simply, do we want to link to external sites with limited new content and no evidence (references)?
- Judging by the distrust of Wikipedia and its editors which has been posted on that (talk) page, I find it hard to understand why the other editor bothers contributing to Wikipedia at all. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- This case has been closed, by the Mediator. It has been relisted, and another Mediator will take over, at the new page. Thankyou
