Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/NewtonFallsLeader

Case Filed On: 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
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: 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: I emailed this user as he deleted the link I placed. A link to a website that I created as a community website, free of charge for anyone to use, www.nfl.tc - Newton Falls Leader.  The Newton Falls Leader is similar in nature as Wikipedia in that it is an collective effort built by its users.  We bring the "Best of the Web Home 44444 (our zip code)" our users.  The Newton Falls Leader charges nothing for use of its site. It provides photos of events around NF, it provides Classified Ads, information, and links to news important to the area.  The only charge for any use of the website is a gift certificate that a company will give for a prize when a users answers one of our "Mystery Questions of the Week".

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Given the info above, Ruhrfisch has something against the Newton Falls Leader (a bias). This is evidenced by his email to me stating that he sees no current/relevant info on the site.  Yet, he leaves sites like 44444.com and the Weekly Villager.  44444.com is nothing more than a site that reprints articles from the Tribune-Chronicle which borders on plagiarism, and list numerous pay links such Google Ads and its own 44444.com apparel.  The Weekly-Villager has no articles dated past September 29, 2006.  Yet, another link is for a myspace site that lists July 4, 2006 info - this is 2007. If Ruhrfisch's objections to Newton Falls Leader are valid, then he should remove these other links.  However, he only wishes to remove the Newton Falls Leader, a clear prejudice, bias, and violation to Wikipedia rules.

Summary:
My responses in #5 summarize my reasons for objecting to the actions user: Ruhrfisch. It is unfair for a single user to edit another users editing without first notifying the other member and asking the other member to correct thier own additions. Ruhrfisch did not do this, instead, he took it upon himself to simply delete something he had no justification to delete. People like Ruhrfisch are a detriment to the success of Wikipedia. I only added a link to a page as did others before me. My link is more relevant and fits more within the rules of Wikipedia than do the links I mentioned, and though Ruhrfisch feels differently - facts are facts. The other websites listed violate Ruhrfisch criteria and his leaving them intact only prove his bias.

I want to apologize to Ruhrfisch and Wikipedia for the repeat of emails sent to Ruhrfisch. These were sent unintentionally, as we were experiencing a network problem and I hit resend after the page failed. It wasn't until I checked my personal mail that I found multiple copies of the email.

I'd also like to add that Ruhrfisch has deleted other entries in efforts to clear himself...however, the point remains that he acted out of bias and against the rules of Wikipedia and needs to be stopped from doing this again. Wikipedia clearly states in its rules that one should email the other - what if I deleted content on his page because I felt it wasn't relevant? Wikipedia cannot afford to have people deleting content "just because". This results in the need for mediation, such as this...a waste of time for everyone! Ruhrfisch has still left a link intact to photos, while he deleted my link to more current photos...again, a clear unwarranted, bias attack by Ruhrfisch.

Response from User:Ruhrfisch
As I write below, I watch close to 1000 pages and when I see links inserted that appear to be link spam, I delete them. I use popups to do this quickly, and I did not leave any sort of message about this at the time on NewtonFallsLeader's talk page or the Newton Falls, Ohio talk page. As I also explain below, reverting edits is not the same as carefully reviewing an article and removing material that I would likely revert if I saw it added. After I read NewtonFallsLeader's emails to me I looked more closely at the article, agreed that several of the External links were not in accord with WP:EL and removed them too.

Nothing against the website, but I see a welcome, a local contest, a clock, a link to the Weather Channel, a Lipitor ad, two links to the newspaper, an ad for LearningExpressLibrary.com, a community calendar, a gallery that shows no pictures on my computer, ads for babysitting classes and a pet store, AP and CNN links, ads for Clear Channel and Twirling. Where's the content? Why is this worth linking as an External link? How does it meet WP:EL? To me it seems clear that it just does not.

I have never heard of AMA and am not sure what to do, but I saw this on the user's contributions and felt that I needed to state my case here too. This user has made less than 10 edits, all trying to link to his website or complain about my reversion of those edits. I have nothing against the user or his website, but do not see how the website meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Ruhrfisch 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote at NewtonFallsLeader's Talk page
Regarding your insertion of the following at my talk page and its removal and sending to me via email, you wrote:


 * You've chosen to delete entries to the Newton Falls, Ohio page, specifically www.nfl.tc the Newton Falls Leader. These are not your entries and were not made by you. You have no valid reason, nor do you offer any valid reason for deleting them.  Wikipedia rules do not allow for anyone to delete entries simply because they do not like the entry.  These entries are valid and are as much a part of Newton Falls, Ohio as are any of the other entries listed.  Hence, if you choose to delete them again, I will follow the procedures set forth by Wikipedia to file a grievance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonFallsLeader (talk • contribs) 15:09, January 31, 2007

I have looked at the web page in question and see no original content relating to Newton Falls that is current. I see lots of advertisements, links to the Weather Channel and local newspaper and CNN and other national and local sites, and announcements for events that are in some cases months out of date. I fail to see how this meets the criteria for a valid external link (see WP:EL for the policy). I welcome you and hope you can improve the article on Newton Falls (or anything else), but if all you want is to insert what many might call "link spam" then you will be reverted every time (and not just by me).

Wikipedia is not a web directory or collection of links (see WP:NOT). If you read the page as you edit it, the following quotation (see below) is useful to recall: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". You might also look at WP:OWN to see that you do not own Wikipedia or your edits or the Newton Falls article.

If you feel you have a grievance, please file away, but I think you should read the policies first. I think you'll find you are the one not following the rules here, such as they are. Yours, Ruhrfisch 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Our second exchange

 * EMail sent to me seven times (maybe there's a bug in the send button?) by User:NewtonFallsLeader is here, my reply is below (and at Newton Falls, Ohio's talk page):


 * Again, I've read your reply. I do not agree with you and nor will Wikipedia.  You delete my link to the Newton Falls Leader, a non-profit venture established by me.  It's intent is to provide the community with a valuable resource that is much like Wikipedia...a website that is built on the participation of others.  Simply because you have a bias against it doesn't give you the right to delete it.  If your reasons for deleting it were valid then you would delete 44444.com not only is this website nothing more than an advertisement for 44444.com, but it is uses only news obtained from the Tribune-Chronical, which borders on plagiarism, and it provides for profit Google Ad links. If you aren't biased, then delete all the links that fit within your criteria!  Links such as "myspace 4th of July"  the 4th of July 2006 is long over past, the "WeeklyVillager" the last article posted on this site for Newton Falls was September 29, 2006.  Jealousy gives you no right to allow one link to exist and another to be deleted, that's bias and against the rules - you should read them!  Also, your leaving these links and deleting the Newton Falls Leader for the reasons stated are not justified...and as soon as this email is sent, I'll be filing a complaint.


 * I have almost 1000 articles on my watch list. I look at changes in them, but do not review the content of each on a regular basis. Newton Falls, Ohio is a fairly low priority article for me, but when I saw a link inserted by you, I followed and read the linked page, and reverted the link as I felt it did not meet the External links criteria. I thank you for bringing the other links to my attention - I have also removed many of them, but I did convert the tornado link into a reference. I assure you I am not jealous, in fact I am glad to help some or give advice if you or anyone wants to improve an article, but inserting a link to a web page that is 90% ads and links to other content providers does not meet WP:EL guidelines as I see it. At this point I would welcome your filing a complaint as that would allow an impartial ruling on the link you insist on inserting. While I expect to be upheld in deleting it, I agree to abide by whatever the ruling is. Finally, please use talk pages and not email for future communications on this topic. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've apologized to you for the multiple emails, behind a proxy our systems were hanging and once thought dead, I resent the email...only to find when checking my personal email that multiple copies had been sent.
 * In my complaint about the violations you've committed against Wikipedia's rules,

Your practices of monitoring these websites are unethical and a concern Wikipedia needs to address with you, hence, I will allow them to do just that.

As for your emails, please stop emailing me. However, please feel free to use my website to look up the word "pompous" as you may want to ad that to your vocab. Just because you have 1000 sites doesn't impress me, nor does it give you any right to act as you have.

Again, the Newton Falls Leader stands behind its right to be on the Newton Falls, Ohio page as it is a non-profit community based website for everyone. Simply, your opinions differ, as do your actions, from the rules of Wikipedia, which will be addressed in my complaint.

== Additions to talk on NewtonFallsLeader ==

STOP DELETING WHAT YOU DON'T WANT OTHERS TO READ...IF YOU ARE ASHAMED OF WHAT YOU'VE DONE THEN I'D STOP DOING IT IF I WERE YOU.


 * NewtonFallsLeader, I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of a "watch list". The watchlist is a Wikipedia tool that allows you to view changes made to specific articles in Wikipedia. If you log in and look at the top of any page on Wikipedia, there will be a tab that says "Watch"; you can click it and add that page to your watchlist. When logged in, you'll also see that one of the links on the top right of Wikipedia pages says "My watchlist". Clicking on that link will show you recent changes to all of the articles you've chosen to watch. It has nothing to do with monitoring websites outside of Wikipedia, nor is it unethical; it's a tool provided by Wikipedia to help editors be more productive. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "right" to be linked from Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does have a policy explaining its general principles on linking other websites: Wikipedia:External links. Please consider the possibility that the behavior you find objectionable is, in fact, a misunderstanding. Choess 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for that information...since I have a MS in Technology, I say that because you are not aware of it, yet you assume, as an attack on me, that I am not fully aware of what a "watch" list is. I'm also aware of the definition of "pompous" and those who fit the definition -"pompous - characterized by excessive self-esteem." I'm not the one who brags about so many pages...Also, I'm not the one who randomly, arrogantly, without reason or cause simply deletes entries without first making sure they are not being biased. If one is going to watch a page and delete entries at will (which I do not believe Wikipedia condones) then do that, but don't delete one entry for unsupported reasons, and without notifying the user, when you leave other links intact. If you are going to watch the site, then watch it. It is blatantly obvious that Ruhrfisch wasn't watching this page. He purposely, biasly deleted my entry for reasons he didn't equally apply to the other links - yet, he calls this watching a page - and we wonder what's wrong with the world. Well, Wikipedia has rules and just because Ruhrfisch doesn't believe in following them doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, the Newton Falls Leader has an archive of photographs, that is continually updated, taken of events in Newton Falls - as is mentioned on that page - that is relevant, and no different than the link he continues to leave intact. As for his allegations that we have advertisements...if he would read the site, I do not allow advertisements. What Ruhrfisch refers to are graphics attached to articles of concern specific to Newton Falls residents, intended to inform them of offers that can save them money - the Newton Falls Leader does not receive any income from any source, rather it is completely and soley funded by me. The only advertisement that is allowed to appear is when a business donates gift certificates for registered uses who answer weekly trivia questions correctly. In addition, the Newton Falls Leader highlights the positives about Newton Falls on an ongoing basis. Because this site is not intended to generate an income, I devote as much of my free time to it as I can, but make no claim to be up to the minute current, that's why I provide the other resources that I do, a dictionary, current news feeds, yellow pages, white pages, a calendar of events, and more. For Ruhrfisch to act as he has, demonstrates his biased against the Newton Falls Leader. The Newton Falls Leader is all about Newton Falls, and nothing else - therefore, it deserves to be on the Newton Falls, Ohio page, read the rules.

Ruhrfisch's Reply (from NewtonFallsLeader's Talk page)
First of all, I apologize for any offense given or for appearing to be pompous - neither was my intent. Thank you for your apology about the multiple emails - I did not and do not take offense at the multiple emails you sent to me, I was merely letting you know that there seemed to be a problem with the email system you were using.

Second, I do not know what you mean by "As for your emails, please stop emailing me." as I have not sent you any emails, although I have used this talk page and the talk pages for Newton Falls, Ohio and here: Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/NewtonFallsLeader. Since you are new to Wikipedia, are you perhaps confusing talk pages with email?

Third, I explained about my watchlist (which User:Choess explained is a commonly used tool on Wikipedia to catch vandalism and other unwanted edits) to give you an idea of why I originally did not notify you of my revert of your edit. I revert a bunch of edits every day. In your case, I assumed good faith and did not think it was vandalism (I try to always warn on vandalism), just lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Hence I reverted and did not leave a message.

Fourth, I assure you I have no bias against you or your website, only an interest in keeping articles in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidlelines. As an example of this, see User talk:Pikeweatherman for a similar removal of an external link for not meeting WP:EL that I was involved in. I am also not ashamed of my edits or communications with you.

Fifth, here is why I deleted your link in all the detail I intend to give. I initially though a webapge for a community in Ohio with a Turks and Caicos internet country code top-level domain was a bit odd (no, .tc does not stand for Trumbull County, although that is clever). When I read it I believed it did not meet the Wikipedia external links guidleleines. All I have learned from you since only bolsters that opinion. Here are the relevant sections of WP:EL to show exactly why I now think your website is not a valid external link.


 * "Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." emphasis added, taken from External_links

"...one should avoid:
 * And the following points from Links normally to be avoided:
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * 5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
 * 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site."

To sum up, you should not link to what you say is your own website in any case. As I see it, your website is not a unique resource suitable for a Featured Article, and it has a large amount of ads (whatever you choose to call them), and it is not directly and symmetrically related to Newton Falls, Ohio.

I am sure if someone tried to put content on your site that did not meet its rules, you would remove it or not add it. That is what I have done here (though I claim no ownership of Wikipedia). If you do not agree, I would appreciate it if you would give similarly detailed and wikilinked citations from Wikipedia of your website's "right" to be here, as well as whatever Wikipedia policies or guidelines you believe I have violated. Otherwise I fail to see what your point is. Thanks and have a good day, Ruhrfisch 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Wouldn't it be great if we had devoted all this effort to improving the Newton Falls, Ohio article instead?

Newton Falls Leader Reply:
Your response is evidence that you acted with bias and still maintain that way...or you're not understanding what you write. I'll choose to believe the first.


 * 1. let me say that it is not the intent of the Newton Falls Leader to spam, violate rules, or upset any external website - including Wikipedia. Since the Newton Falls Leader doesn't generate an income, I have no reason to force it upon anyone.  Simply, it doesn't matter if one person uses the site or 100,000 people use the site - the Newton Falls Leader makes the same, nothing!


 * 2. by definition, "advertisement is defined as: A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention or patronage." Nothing on the Newton Falls Leader fits that description except for two ads that are posted in exchange for gift certificates as prizes for our Weekly Mystery Question - I guess one could say that those are paid announcements - I like to call them sponsors. Besides, the Newton Falls Leader doesn't get the money, the prize winners do!


 * 3. before you jump to conclusions you should ask. When designing the site I wanted a catchy name.  When I added Leader to Newton Falls the acronym became NFL - then upon doing domain searches the only NFL domain availabe happened to be the .tc - and yes, it is from the Turks and Caicos Islands, however it fits well with Trumbull County and makes nfl.tc quite easy to remember, is this jealousy?  Chastise me because I'm creative, really!  Seriously, what difference does it make what domain name a site has as long as it isn't something derogatory or obscene? You want to make this an issue, but it isn't.


 * 4. yes, I am new to Wikipedia and hadn't fully read all the rules. However, I didn't do anything against the rules...with the posibility of posting my own site...I will investigate that. I have read enough to know that what you did was uncalled for and against Wikipedia rules. You obviously feel the same or you wouldn't be trying so fruitlessly to defend your actions.


 * 5. you call the Newton Falls Leader articles "links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." The Newton Falls Leader provides its users with useful and money saving articles. For example: one article informs users that they can save 50% at a local restaurant and provides the link to do it.  Another article informs users that they can get a 30 day supply of medication absolutely free.  You call these ads, by definition they are not.  Nevertheless, you obviously object to the way the Newton Falls Leader does it, so I'd like to hear how you propose a site provide its users with beneficial information?


 * 6. why is it that a site you left intact is ok when it contains photographs of Newton Falls events, yet you want to block other sites who have photographs of Newton Falls Events. I personally took and posted those photographs.  Again, I'd like to hear your reasons why one site is ok and another is not - if it isn't due a bias.  Also, I'd like to know how you draw your conclusion that my photographs are not an historical pictorial of Newton Falls.  Though you refuse to admit it, these photographs are unique to my site, and make my site a unique extension to the Newton Falls, Ohio page.  After all, they are pictures of the people, places and events here in Newton Falls, Ohio.


 * 7. furthermore, it is only your opinion that the Newton Falls Leader is not unique - you state, "As I see it, your website is not a unique resource...." You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind the old cliche', "opinions are like bad breath, we all have one and they all stink."  (of course I edited that cliche' for publication here.) If you want to back your statement, show me another Newton Falls site like the Newton Falls Leader - having personally written most of the blocks on the site, I know there isn't another website in Newton Falls like it - I think that makes it, by definition, unique!


 * 8. I chuckled when I read your PS - you must be trying to win people's favor with a touchy-feely saying? You are the one that is working to destroy the Newton Falls, Ohio page, not the Newton Falls Leader.  Fact is fact, but of course you don't agree.  However, all I did was to post two links, you took it upon yourself to act with bias and delete them without cause or justification. Again, you aren't much of a watch dog, nor do your actions give much credibility to your statements.  You can't do one thing, then say another and expect that people are going to believe you.  The facts remain that you quickly deleted, not once, but twice links without cause or notification.  You never even bothered to check out the links.  And, when you did, you attempt to call them something that simply isn't true...just your opinion.  Furthermore, for some reason you jumped on these two links, while you left several other links intact, links that in your opinion were worse than the Newton Falls Leader links. Then, you try to justify yourself by destroying links that have been on the Newton Falls, Ohio page for the better part of a year, and probably longer - links left there by you.  Personally, I'd be ashamed to call myself a watchdog.

Words are words, without actions they are empty, meaningless. Your actions clearly fit the definition of bias, and your words back that up.

Again, let's stop this pointless chatter and allow Wikipedia to decide if what you've done and how you've acted is within their rules or not.

Thank you - Newton Falls Leader

PS - do I criticize you for using a user name that very few understand? Is it German? Does that belong here? This is the English version. Now, doesn't that sound silly?

Discussion:

 * I would like to know where both sides currently stand on the issue. As we resolve this, i have a poll going on on the talk page of the article to see whether or not others would place the newton falls leader site as an external link.
 * From my understanding of wikipedia policy the newton falls leader site is a valid external link but only if it is placed by some one other than any person who owns and/or represents and/or maintains the site (NewtonFallsLeader would fall into this category therefore cannot add the link).

Blah0401 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I got an email back from NewtonFallsLeader (whom I had emailed to let know the case was active). He is busy now and can't respond for a week (the email was sent yesterday). Here is our exchange (I edited out his real name):

Hi,

I visited the page breifly the other day, but haven't had time to talk. What is an AMA advocate?

My schedule won't allow time for me to respond for at least a week.

Thanks for keeping me updated.

Newton Falls Leader

> Hi Newton Falls Leader, > > the AMA advocate has started a poll on the Newton Falls, Ohio article talk > page about including the www.nfl.tc link in the article's external links > section. Since you have not made any edits on Wikipedia in several days, I > was not sure if you knew and wanted to let you know so you could weigh in > with your opinion. > > Hope all is well with you, > Ruhrfisch Ruhrfisch 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blah0401 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Newton Falls Leader, I'm here to help you resolve your dispute with Ruhrfisch. It was you who asked for help from the AMA and i opened the case so I am your AMA advocate. When you have time, please read what other wikipedians have had to say on the talk page of the article in question. There are some good points and explanations made there that i think you should read. Feel free to write back.
 * Thanks Blah0401, I would also put this on NewtonFallsLeader's talk page (which he checks occasionally) and consider emailing him ( the link is activated). Ruhrfisch 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: NO! Blah0401 proved to have an agenda all his own.  He was not out to resolve this issue - as his emails to me (that he posted without my permission) show.  He claims he is neutral - that he won't take sides - this after he states just the oposite on the Newton Falls, Ohio Discussion page.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: NO! I cannot believe that Wikipedia condones Advocates handling a case in this manner. Blah0401 is dishonest, has his own agenda, and couldn't care less of the people involved.  Never once has he asked me (he probably asked Ruhrfisch) how it is I'd like to see this issue resolved.  Additionally, he gives no explanations for his actions, allegations, or lies.  Furthermore, he failed to provide any explanation as to why Wikipedia allows similar links on other pages when he is not allowing this link.  Blah0401 has made a true mockery of the Advocacy program and of Wikipedia itself.

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

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

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

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: Blah0401 restricted from being an Advocate on Wikipedia.  He has done nothing to resolve this issue, and instead has caused more strife in this dispute.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: This dispute has not been resolved. There are a few Wikipedians who feel they are Wikipedia, and they are not.  This issue stems from a link being posted on a page - a link that was deleted for a reason that was not applied equally to other links on that same page.  The link was removed without notification or justification by an individual who has since continually changed his reasons as he has failed to justify his actions.  This dispute remains unresolved because this individual is now more concerned about proving himself, than about the good of the order - the Wikipedia page.  Sadly, this individual refuses to accept that Wikipedia allows similar links to exist on countless pages across Wikipedia.  Futhermore, this individual refuses to take the same action and delete any of the other links - yet he also refuses to restore the link he deleted.  So, while other links are allowed to exist on Wikipedia - this link is not, simply because of this one individual - no his name isn't God.

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Accepted by Blah0401 10:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)