Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-17 Keith Olbermann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-17 Keith Olbermann

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 Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: JeffBerg 03:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
...Violation of external linking policy. Discussion has gone out about this one link for quite a few months now and others have attempted to edit out the offendign link: www.keitholbermann.org , but the link has always been returned to the external link page in spite of the discussion that this site violates Wiki policy on Vanity, on Spam, on being a message board/fan site with no unique content. I saw the discussion today, read the history, and edited out the offending link giving my reasons why. No one has argued with my logic, but instead, have resorted to personal attacks and threats. (Pleae read both the section in the discussion page entitled www.keitholbermann.org and the last section, "removing link" at the very bottom of the discussion page.
Who's involved?
...Cute Gargoyle and a poster named Michael and another person with a strange user name.
What's going on?
...As I have said above, personal attacks, accusations, and threats and intimidation by "Michael" who owns the website, "www.keitholbermann.org. He has apparently made prior claims that it was the only Keith Olbermann message board on the net and therefore warranted inclusion. Others have pointed out that this is simplynot true, there are two at Quick Topics, one at Television Without Pity and a hugely popular forum at Democratic Underground. His claims are simply without merit. I explained, very carefully that he was in violation of rules concerning external links which is why I chose to edit him out. He and this other user, Cute Gargoyle have accused me of having an agenda, which I swear I do not: I just do not like to see inclusion of one site over another, especially when its very apparent the owner of that site was using Wiki to promote his own website, and flat-out admits it on the discussion page. Anyway, now it has dissolved into personal attacks on me, demands that I sign in using a user name (which I did--see history page) and claims that I was in violation of the rules, not them, because I had edited his link out more than once today--something I would NOT have done had they not kept putting it back in. No one has disputed my reasons for removing it, those points have already been previously argued there, and ignored apparently as the offending link keeps being reinserted. Anyway, the personal insults are flying, again in violation of Wiki policy. Also, CuteGarygoyle has apparently questioned my right to edit because I was not signed in, questioned why I didn't question the article when it was first completed. I wasn't aware that there were time limits on disputing edits or that one had to be signed in. She also calls for the "regular" editors to weigh in, essentially asking them to outnumber me I suppose.
What would you like to change about that?
...I would like the offending post removed, clear guidance on Wiki rules provided as a reminder, as well as a reminder to posters that personal attacks are not cool by Wiki rules.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
...
Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Sure--why not? I really realized today how possessive of edits people could be and how willing they are to create their own rules and ignore Wikis. Not cool at all.

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
...

[edit] Mediator response

The article in dispute is Keith Olbermann. Most of the involved parties do not have accounts and even the filer just started his. There is a certain lack of experience as evidenced by many violations on the talk pages, this form being improperly filled out, and the accounts having a very limited range of activity.

The original dispute is based on a misreading of WP:EL. After a very short evaluation I have discovered that the site in dispute is http://www.keitholbermann.org is a legitimate discussion site on an obscure topic and offers genuine content to the Olbermann article. There may be a small number of similar sites but given the obscure topic the article is currently in no danger of being overrun by useless links, Keith Olbermann is not Madonna at this point in his career.

I'm issuing a Summary close on this case and recommending the www.keitholbermann.org link be reinstated in the article.

After the above subjects on the board agreed to allow 5 separate links. There has been some resistance and I've been intervening to assist in stabilizing the links section for now. the group has changed for the better most users have gotten user names and there is more constructive dialogue. I'm going to continue to monitor and help to ward off destabilizing influences. jbolden1517Talk 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the compromise is now holding. I can re-shut this. jbolden1517Talk 16:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Pleae see examples of pesonal attacks here: "I would like to point out that this fellow who calls himself "Jeff" is at 64.12.117.9 If you research what 64.12.117.9 likes to write about and edit, you will find CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. This, my friends is a Scientologist not only attacking Keith Olbermann, but yours truly, a Psychologist, because Scientologists not only hate Olbermann, they also hate Psychologists (we once ruled their founder unethical and had his ass sued). Nice try to intimidate me, but you are only making me more interested in your silly religion--but not in a way you will enjoy "Jeff"."

"Your IP isn't that busy, Jeff. I don't really care who your are, but you should really stop vandalizing the Keith Olbermann article, and I assume, harrassing the people at my website. You seem to be one sick little puppy, "Jeff". --192.111.52.40 02:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)"

And here's another by another poster: "Does anyone else think that this anonymous AOLer with the incredible chip on her shoulder shouldn't be permitted to blank this link endlessly? I haven't heard any support of her position since the site was brand new, several months ago. What do the regular editors think now? CuteGargoyle 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC) "

Is there a specific policy which states only "regular" editors are allowed to make decisions? Or that only editors who are signed in can make such edits? Are there time limits upon which claims must be made???? I didn't think so either.

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


[edit] Comments by others

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.


[edit] Discussion