Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-06 Pschemp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Npgallery 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Pages edited by Pschemp
Who's involved?
User:Pschemp, User:Colin.faulkingham, User:Gadfium, User: Nationalparks, others (see comments below for relevant discussions)
What's going on?
User:Pschemp began the wholesale deletion of quality links from scores of national parks pages, claiming they were "link spam." They most certainly are not link spam. These links have been in Wikipedia for a long time. User:Pschemp appears to have embarked on a personal vendetta, in which User:Colin.faulkingham and User:Gadfium have assisted. User:Gadfium completely sided with her and hardly acted as a fair administrator. See Pschemp's libelous and defamatory and personal attacks on nationalparks's talk page which appear to have been the catalyst for her vendetta.
What would you like to change about that?
Links added back. Disciplinary action taken against those involved.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
...

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Nationalparks

In defense of Pschemp, please refer to these discussions:

Village pump discussion.

External links discussion.

Also, Npgallery has been blocked for 24 hours.

Nationalparks 21:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gadfium

Any mediator might also be interested in the discussion at User_talk:Pschemp#US_National_Parks_and_spam comparing the quality of three different external links which have been added to many US National Parks articles.-gadfium 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shimgray

User, as far as I can tell, spammed their site across pages. This got partially removed, put back on, lay dormant for a while; someone noticed it, removed the lot, and then Enormous Screaming Fits started. Pschemp is entirely in the right, as far as I can tell; the mass-addition of the links looks spammy, since the sites themselves don't seem to add much - on one page I'd consider it borderline worthwhile, but the whole motive seems clearly to have been to add links to as many pages as possible... and, then, when called on this Npgallery started getting loud, making vague legal threats of defamation, demanding people "show their authority", citing our "mob mentality" and a user's "personal vendetta"... you get the idea. Jdavidb blocked him for 24 hours for disruption after this.
The demand above for reinstatement of the links and "disciplinary action" should give you some idea of the lack of common-sense being talked about here. The request is frivolous, IMO. Shimgray | talk | 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (not involved until running across this on the VP and concurring that, yes, it was spam)
The above comment by Shimgray really doesn't add anything, plus it's a personal attack (common sense), and is just another person claiming "spam" without any definition whatsoever, nor reference to Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgallery (talk • contribs)

[edit] Pschemp

I believe Npgallery's recent edits speak for themselves. As I have said before, asking a question is neither libel nor defamation. As far as I am concerned, this is a spurious request and thinly disguised revenge for my removal of the links. It is silliness, and a waste of cabalists time as there is nothing to mediate. Pschemp | Talk 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

One only needs to look at the flagrant personal attacks made on numerous pages against Npgallery by Pschemp to see that she is clearly on a personal vendetta devoid of any adherence to official Wikipedia policy or actual concerns about its quality. Look at the rapid succession of her link removals with the knee-jerk claim of "link spam", without providing any thoughtful nor professional discourse whatsoever. Furthermore, accusing others of running a site that spams without any evidence whatsoever is clearly libel and defamation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npgallery (talk • contribs)

I'd also like to point out that clearly on the Cabal page it says Please note that the Mediation Cabal cannot deal with disciplinary issues. Nationalparks 06:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jdavidb

After this comment, I end my involvement.

At first glance, Npgallery is clearly a classic linkspammer. Following the classic linkspammer profile, Npgallery will attempt to subvert Wikipedia's process by misusing it to force his links in. Npgallery will do this without regard to how many Wikipedian-hours are wasted. Nobody should ever link to their own site on Wikipedia, period. If they really want it in, they should propose it on the talk page and respect consensus.

"Nobody should ever link to their own site on Wikipedia, period." - Where is that stated in Wikipedia's policy? Or is that your own policy that you just made up? If you'd look at the other links on the great many pages, you'll see that nobody ever (that I've ever seen) "proposed" links - they simply added them (and very occasionally anti-spam zealots reverted them, without any discussion whatsoever). I really do think the links to nationalparksgallery.com, and many of the other sites are high-quality, relevant to the pages they were on, and add to the value of Wikipedia (which I'm NOT trying to subvert). I'm also appalled by the number of Wikipedian-hours that are being wasted fighting the lynch mob mentality of a handful of users. Npgallery 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK states "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Npgallery is unfortunately not brand new, but has, at first glance, done nothing on Wikipedia other than repeatedly attempt to force in links to his own site. As such, I contend that Npgallery is not a member of the Wikipedia community and does not have standing to initiate proceedings against any real members, as I presume Pschemp is (unless Pschemp also meets the definition of single-purpose account holder).

So, by the same logic, Pschemp shouldn't have had any authority either to initiate proceedings against any real members. Npgallery 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Npgallery demonstrated long ago that he would not respect reversions of his links. When you do something on Wikipedia, if it is reverted, you should not fight back by reverting, but should instead start by discussing your desired change on the article talk page. If Npgallery will make a statement to the effect that he will never again revert war, he will have taken the first step toward being a valued member of the Wikipedia community. If, on the other hand, Npgallery continues to show that his commitment is to drawing viewers in to his site rather than to producing a high-quality encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no obligation to allow his continued involvement. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the argument against the reverters? Shouldn't THEY start a discussion BEFORE deleting LONG-STANDING links? Time clearly sides with me on this. Time and again I've seen links deleted maliciously (like by Pschemp) under the claim of "link spam", and the deleters often add their own links and change the links of others. As an example of this very behavior, see the history of anonymous user 63.77.108.247 [1] - which I wouldn't be surprised to find out it actually the IP of one of the instigators of the attacks against me. Npgallery 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As pointed out on various other discussions, there were edit wars where someone removed the link, then it was put right back with the remark rv vandal. Before this whole "issue" started, I tried to begin a discussion with Npgallery at Talk:Bryce Canyon National Park. I later realized that an ongoing discussion was located at User_talk:Npgallery. Nationalparks 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I take exception to your statement that I don't care about the value of Wikipedia. I've contributed to several articles, created a great great many stubs for many national park pages which didn't exist, and worked with others (like User:MONGO) to improve the articles. Npgallery 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Those stubs have mainly been tagged for cleanup (not by me, mind you). In general, they were taken directly from the NPS website. For instance compare this NPS site to Npgallery's final stub edit of this article on Wikipedia Nationalparks 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Others taken directly from various nps.gov sites include: Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, De Soto National Memorial, Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, Fort Smith National Historic Site, and many others (see certain pages from Npgallery's edits). These all need articles (so maybe shouldn't just be deleted, but rewritten), and I will start rewriting some of them. Nationalparks 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] garglebutt

Worthless links added to multiple pages possibly for personal vanity. Blatant copying of information from multiple pages at http://www.nps.gov, although I note that the web site places most of its content in the public domain. Still, wikipedia is not about duplicating content verbatim that already exists elsewhere. npgallery is obviously and knowingly acting in bad faith through his aggressive actions towards other editors. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Case closed, participants advised to read Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers 09:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)