Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Urod 2

< Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates | Requests

Case Filed On: 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to the deletion of 2 of 3 pages in question, the case is closed. I am not interested in dealing with this dispute anymore. --Urod 17:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:

edit

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer: yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: policy dispute and content dispute

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer: hadn't try any. I don't think that mediation would help in this specific case. User:Requestion told that if an ArbCom decision will be against him, he'll try to delete the page, and if this fails, he will go to ArbCom again (and again and again).

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: I want to finish the dispute fast and efficient with ArbCom. I want help with sending the case to ArbCom, there are many rules and instructions which are complicated. I want to present my case in a good way. I want that ArbCom decision will be final, no further harassments if I'll win the case.

Summary:

edit

I believe that in case of software lists, all pieces of software without WP article should include external link. I don't see what is a harm of it.


Discussion:

edit

It sounds like a dispute occurring in regards to WP:SPAM. First off, two out of the three articles on this page have been deleted for various reasons (it appears both were deleted after AfD discussions), so that just leaves the remaining page. It appears that we have a user, in good faith, trying to add external links, while another user, also in good faith, is removing those links and citing them as spam. It would appear that at least some of the external links are intended solely to promote, so I would advise Urod to take a look at our policies concerning that, and try to work and reach an agreement with Requestion as to whether or not these links are useful. WP:EL and more importantly Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided should provide some great guidance in that regard. —Pilotguy (go around) 18:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Urod's user page

edit

Your insults

edit

You said: "I am going complain to the arbcom both about your removal of my link in C++ article, and your insults. As you know very well, Wikipedia:Vandalism is a delibrate attempt to compromise the integrity of wikipedia."

"As for the link, it is about C++. It is more important than most of other external links. I know very well that you, probably together with some other admins, are now going to follow me, call my editions "vandalism" and/or "spam" becuase your friends asked you to do so, and use any opportunities to ban me from editing english wikipedia."

As has been pointed out to you previously, your external links are often inappropriate for the Wikipedia. Nobody asked me to leave a warning on your page. Nobody had ever mentioned you to me. I saw your inappropriate link added to C++, saw that you had been warned repeatedly, and added a warning about your further violation. I would suggest that there is no conspiracy against you. --Yamla 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the link you added was full of commercial referral links to amazon. That alone makes the link totally inappropriate. Even aside from the fact that this is simply a list of books and links. --Yamla 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that (a) external links to lists of books and links are prohibited in wikipedia? (b) external links to pages which, among other, contain referal links, are also prohibited? --Urod 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWD FROM:User Talk:Urod FWD BY:Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalkTodays Pick TIME:23:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:

edit

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:


AMA Information

edit

Case Status: closed


Advocate Status:

—Pilotguy (go around) 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/Urod_2&oldid=1138375470"