Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-27 External Link Discrimination

Mediation Case: 2006-09-27 External Link Discrimination
Please observe 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.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Calrog 06:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_Highway_System


 * Who's involved?
 * Calrog, Seicer


 * What's going on?
 * On the aforementioned Wikipedia page, I have anonymously shared an external link to my website, http://hwy-shields.calrog.com. This website is to be referred to as Pictures of Highway Shields.  My website is a hobby-inspired, free collection of Interstate highway photographs.  These photos, in my point of view and in those of many others from reputable sources, provide a look at world highways.

In fact, Pictures of Highway Shields is listed on DMOZ (http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Roads_and_Highways/Photography/).

A user named Seicer has incorrectly & repeatedly deleted the link to my page, claiming that I have "spammed" the Wikipedia topic. He also claims that my webpage, which happens to use Javascript for wrapping windows around photographs, as being a "hijacking" artform. He also claims the corresponding External Links section is "not for link-posting", thus my website is "not acceptable".

I find all of his claims, all listed in parentheses above, to be highly subjective. He has attempted to mold those seemingly subjective claims as 'violation of Wikipedia policy', claiming his parenthesised arguments are legitimate.

I believe the topic-related photographs that I'm trying to share are being discriminated against by one single user, Seicer. Again, my webpage is a hobbyist page--one that I believe adds value to the corresponding Wikipedia page. No other registered users have complained of my External Link.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like to share http://hwy-shields.calrog.com as an External Link for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_Highway_System.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Whatever seems necessary to resolve the isue.

Mediator response
Calrog, thanks for explaining your understanding of this case. Also, using IE 5, your site works perfectly. However, I would comment that all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are written and improved by ordinary editors. In this sense, they represent a consensus of views regarding the conduct of editors. The consensus is that you should not include a website that you own, because of concerns relating to neutrality. The view taken is that if the information is provided is relevant, you should mention it on the talk page and let other, neutral, editors decide whether to add the link. Addhoc 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


 * Calrog could submit information to the relevant articles he has spammed since he is knowledgeable in those specific fields. Images taken by Carl Rogers could also be uploaded using the upload process and be used in said articles. This would be a welcome contribution outside of external links.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a popular tool that present facts and topic-relevant material. In interest of brevity and on-topic/factual information, I, Carl Rogers (of Pictures of Highway Shields ), will only post one External Link for the topic of Interstate Highways.  The location would be:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_Highway_System .  In the spirit of compromise, no other Wikipedia  pages on the explicit topic of Interstate highways would receive the hyperlink.   Calrog  (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I suppose I should input what I've had to revert over one dozen times.


 * Calrog is the same user as 68.124.30.103, 71.135.185.171 & 64.195.90.51 who has spammed numerous pages with links to his various photo galleries.


 * The various IP users were traced to Carl Rogers, author of the said links he has been spamming. See NNTP-Posting-Host for 68.124.30.103, NNTP-Posting-Host for 71.135.185.171. Calrog is just a nickname for Carl Rogers.


 * I assumed good faith at first, believing it was just a "newbie" error, and made a polite notice at User talk:71.135.185.171. The IPuser ignored the notice and continued to spam many other highway-related pages, to which I provided him with various warning templates. This continued on, until he began contributing via 68.124.30.103 and 64.195.90.51.


 * The links are considered spam because Wikipedia is not a link directory, per WP:EL; per 1.3.1, the web-site does not provide an adequate resource beyond photos. Also, the pages that he links to hijacks browsers by forcing viewers using Javascript to resize the window; per 1.3.5, it is not compliant with the set standards.


 * Per the comment left at User talk:71.135.185.171, I invited Carl Rogers to discuss the matter privately on my talk page to which he has not done so, so I assume that he has read WP:EL and has understood the policies.


 * Already with his new account, he has begun spamming: Interstate Highway System History, to which it was removed by Mhking at 11:06, 27 September 2006 for spamming.


 * I hope this clearifies up my position. I'm saddened that Carl Rogers refuses to discuss this in a manner to which I would have assumed good faith, by discussing it on my talk page, and that it had to come to this.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the link five to six times. Not a dozen times.  This indicates an air of exaggeration.  This indicates the subjective basis of Seicer's  arguments. My point is to share an objective resource, i.e., highway photographs, as well as links to other reputable, empirical sources in addition to my other internal, relevant sites.  I intend to keep adding the link as a resource, as what I perceive to be an objective, empirical resource for further on-topic reading.


 * Note his terms "spamming", "newbie", "hijacking", etc. These are all opinionated terms, using implicit doctrine for the code of conduct mentioned below.


 * It is also claimed that my External source violates sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.5. I quote for each corresponding section:


 * 1.3.1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article."


 * My argument: Pictures of Highway Shields provides links to several related topics, including other internal websites like Videos of Worldwide Highways.  There are several resources outside photos.   I, Carl Rogers, invite the Cabal mediator to visit Pictures of Highway Shields to witness it.  Let the facts speak for themselves.


 * 1.3.5: Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.


 * My response: The site loads well w/ Safari, IE 6.0 & 7.0 and Mozilla.  I invite the Cabal mediator to visit Pictures of Highway Shields to witness it.  Let the facts speak for themselves.  It seems Seicer disapproves of Javascript, and has once again, used subjectivity and fallacy to support Wikipedia's code of conduct, or similar name thereof (i.e., 1.3.5).


 * While he seems saddened at the situation as a whole, that's really none of my concern! Logic does not perceive sadness, and I'm trying to offer an empirical source for further on-topic reading.  Logically based.  I don't expect several hits from Wikipedia when these links are provided.  An empirical source is being given to readers for knowledge's sake.  Seicer's main argument is his subjective interpretation of Wikipedia code of conduct, then using that to discriminate/remove a link that is relevant to the topic at hand.  It is also irrelevant that he discusses another Wikipedia page, edited by another user, when in fact my complaint is for the Interstate highway page only.  He also seems to dig up my personal identity as a strawman to the issue, plausibly creating a dysphemism of my personal character.  I personally wouldn't be surprised if future discussions involve attack on personal character to justify subjective-based arguments.  Reason is, he has shown a history of subjective interpretation and action, as evidenced by the removal of my External Link.


 * Again, the central issue is the discrimination against the link I've provided. I'd hope Pictures of Highway Shields can be listed as an External Link w/o discrimination.  For knowledge's sake.   Calrog  (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I count 38 seperate incidents. Verify yourself at 68.124.30.103, 71.135.185.171 & 64.195.90.51.


 * Once again, your links are nothing more than photos and you have a few videos (to which I viewed) of you standing next to a highway or on the road for a short duration. It is standard procedure to remove links to these types of sites, as has been done with thousands of pages, because they do not introduce material that is unique in terms of information. If its just photos, then its not considered relevant. Instead of bullying around this long-accepted tradition of removing link spam, why not contribute to Wikipedia and submit some photos for yourself to some articles?


 * As for your site, it is in bad form to force users to resize the windows per the image size. This is not approperiate on any web-site I have designed, nor is it approperiate for Wikipedia.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are literally thousands of photographs on Pictures of Highway Shields. Seicer has personally chosen to view a single photograph which happens to include me.  In logic, this is called the "Poison the Well" tactic.  Perhaps what her or she is doing is persuade the mediator from viewing http://hwy-shields.calrog.com and deciding for himself or herself, in attempt for a quick resolution to defend his or her fundamentalism.


 * Again, I invite the mediator to see for himself or herself. Have the mediator review code 1.3.1 and 1.3.5.  Seicer has presented nothing more than an over-exaggerated view of a website which he/she does not personally approve.  That seems to be his or her central argument.  No numbers or personally-irrelevant information that Seicer can change that.  It seems to boil down to Seicer's  fundamentalism.


 * The terms "bully" and "bad" are once again SUBJECTIVE, much like the other parenthesised material of his or hers that I've presented in the argument. My four year old nephew has the same capacity to use subjective labels.  Seicer has yet to cite explicit code-of-conduct which validates his or her claims.  Implicit doctrine and subjectivity are used to represent my "violations" of Wikipedia's (read:  his or her) policy.  All Seicer has used are subjective labels to defend his or her fundamentalist point-of-view.  Obviously, his personal website is not Wikipedia, so what he feels about his website is his or her own business.  Not Wikipedias!


 * Although Wikipedia is an open-source environment, Seicer seems to have chosen a fundamentalist viewpoint to discourage the distribution of authentic, empirical Interstate photographs.


 * To help the mediator understand the big picture, I'd recommend that he or she look at my arguments in this discussion, versus what Seicer has presented! I've discussed in response to Seicer's comments, yet he has used subjective labels to discriminate a library of thousands of highway photographs.


 * Fact is, Seicer has decided to take a moral standpoint on the form of the website, criticising its form of delivery. The words "bad", "hijack", "spamming" and "newbie" are no more than social construct.  That's not factual evidence.


 * It's in my argument that Pictures of Highway Shields provides an additional reference to the Interstate page. Thousands of relevant pictures prove that.   Calrog  (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is, since you have come onto Wikipedia with your three IPuser accounts and user:Calrog, you have shown a strong interest in self-promoting your web-site, rather than contribute worthwhile to the project. I outlined what you could do to help out Wikipedia, such as you could upload an image to an article whereas approperiate, or add in documentation, references, and information to various articles. Viewing your posts at newsgroup misc.transport.road, you show knowledge of the highway system in California, so why not add and help out in the respect I outlined rather than linkspam? Also of note: Please indent your posts per reply; it keeps the structure organised.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Opinion is, "(Carl Rogers has) come onto Wikipedia with your three IPuser accounts and user:Calrog, (Carl Rogers has) shown a strong interest in self-promoting (his) web-site, rather than contribute worthwhile to the project."


 * The term worthwhile, much like a fair number of his other terms in his or her aforementioned arguments, are subjective, based on Seicer's personal tastes. He or she has shown little objectivity in his view of Pictures of Highway Shields.  Read below for more.


 * It seems apparent that Seicer is continually making presumptions about personal character and validity of the website, avoiding the central argument. On numerous occasions, he or she has removed my External Link which corresponds to the topic-of-interest.  That is the central argument that I contest.  He or she has used personal fundamentals to (1) negatively criticise Javascript, (2) harass my character and website to (3) consider a largely objective page "spam", what he thinks is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Note his or her usage of the word "bad", "hijack", "spamming" and "newbie" in a subjective attack against a third-party page (Pictures of Highway Shields) that happens to have multiple Interstate highway photographs.  Absolutely none of his or her claims are explicitly backed by Wikipedia code of conduct!  He or she has ignored the compromise that I've written.  My participation in other Internet forums is simply not relevant to this topic--he or she seems to research irrelevant activity for non-logical reasons.  His or her claims are largely logical smokescreens, nothing more.  His or her fallacy, as shown by parenthesised terminology in previous discussions, does NOT support the central argument, which has been operationally defined in this Discussion.


 * Mediation is strongly suggested, thank you. Until then, his or requests and remarks will go ignored; the Pictures of Highway Shields hyperlink will continue to be posted to the Interstate highway page. Conversely, he or she claims that I made 38 attempts to update the Interstate page.  As irrelevant and off-topic as this is to the central argument, I've  added the link to the Interstate Highway page substantially less times than that.   The only reason I mention this is because Seicer has deliberately misrepresented information to meet his subjective qualm to Pictures of Highway Shields.  Let's have the mediator see the facts for him- or herself.  The topic of this cabal is the Interstate page only.  Seicer's claims have introduced irrelevance against a central argument he or she fails to acknowledge.


 * A factual, empirical resource is not in direct violation of the code of conduct. Should Pictures of Highway Shields explictly violate code of conduct, please let me know Mr/Ms Mediator.'''


 * From this point forward, I refuse to negotiate w/ Seicer due to the overload of irrelevant, personal attacks against Pictures of Highway Shields. This is External Link discrimination.   Calrog  (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: Please indent your posts as approperiate. It makes the page unreadable or hard to follow otherwise.
 * I'm suprised you have decided to take this stance. I politely requested that you discuss it on my talk page from the onset, where I assumed good faith. The reintroduction of links, per violation of WP:EL and the warnings of spam and vandalism, is in ignorance of policy. I have a 2R rule, but as has been demostrated, it will be reverted without notice. You have added the link a total of 38 times under three IP's and a username throughout numerous articles - that cannot be covered up because its clearly defined in your contribution history outlined above.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, why are you linking to my contribution list and talk page in your signature? I have changed it where approperiate. It's not good form to copy signatures here, do it instead in your preferences.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the link in question from Interstate Highway System, as posted by User:71.135.185.171, once again. Since this is in mediation, any action on your part while this process is ongoing can certainly be seen as disingenuous, and counter-productive. --Mhking 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 71.135.185.171 has been temporary blocked for spamming. I will inform the admin to block his other IPs and accounts so that we won't end up in a linkspam mess.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not allowed to add links to your own site to Wikipedia. No matter if you have a good site or not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided:

A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."


 * Note: cquote2 is more effective in displaying quotes than blockquote.
 * I wouldn't go as far as to say that, since it is normally not to be linked to. If the external site contains information outside the boundary and scope of the Wikipedia article, and isn't just a photo gallery, then I would call for its inclusion. The link in question though was nothing more than photo galleries that failed two WP:EL points and was blantingly self-promotion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the postings do violate WP:EL. We've reverted many sudden link additions by such users on highways pages, this should be no exception. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In this instance, yes. And it should be applied with uniformity throughout other pages. I'm talking about in general. I've added a few links to various pages on my site, American Byways, because they exceed the scope and provide a great detail of information. One instance of this is Red River Gorge in Kentucky. Whereas the Wikipedia article is brief and gives an overview, as it should, the link to my site's article gives descriptive trail information, attractions, etc.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Typically you're supposed to get consensus before you do that. But two examples of stuff that has been reverted is www.westernexitguide.com and www.milebymile.com. Well I don't remember if all the mile by mile got reverted but anyway... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I've been doing to urban exploration only because it is a heavily trafficked wiki entry with lots of discussion. For articles like Red River Gorge, there is scant if any discussion on a regular basis and getting consensus is going to be hard to do. For the urban exploration article, I'm giving it two weeks for a fair discussion/vote, but for other articles, it would be more of a "wait and see" approach. Speaking of...  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with Carl Rogers through several message boards. By character, he is a dishonest person, and always looking to screw someone over. It would not surprise me in the least if Carl Rogers was someone manipulating this debate to make himself look better. In fact, he'll probably delete this message. --149.169.170.120 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any message can be reverted and the offending user warned.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC): "Access to Pictures of Highway Shields, through Wikipedia, is prohibited. While we find Wikipedia to be an informational online encyclopedia, some of their editors are subjectively-biased against the empirical information that Pictures of Highway Shields, a CALROG.COM component, presents. These editors have self-righteously chosen to discriminate Pictures of Highway Shields as a credible hyperlink, due to irrelevant personal dispositions of the aforementioned editors--completely disregarding the empirical information that the webpage provides. A catalogue of these personal dispositions can be found here. If concerned, please contact senior Wikipedia editors to review the inconsiderate and subjective qualms against one of the world's largest, free collections of international highway photographs.

Cheers,

Carl Rogers"