Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-27 Dorket Head

Who are the involved parties?
Myself and several other moderators

What's going on?
I created an article on Stanton Hill referring to a local non-profit organization who provide internet. It was not within the guidelines for acceptable content on Wikipedia. It has since been removed, and I have left the article alone.

However, all other articles I edit, such as this one and the MPT1327 article are being edited. I have edited this one to be accurate, but I cannot contribute to Wikipedia if all articles I put on are being deleted straight away, and now I am being told I will be banned from Wikipedia.

What would you like to change about that?
Although I made an addition to a webpage about my local village which was not welcome, other additions which I am making to other pages, such as MPT1327 (although it could be advertising, it is a very unusual use of MPT1327, and it is the only software package which uses MPT1327 like this and so is necessary to clarify the use for technical people) and Dorket Head are being changed.

eeWifi recently installed their own mast at Dorket Head, so there are now 3 masts. I changed the Dorket Head text to say this as a test to see if I was being targeted for all additions I make or if it really was the content. It appears I am being blacklisted by moderators, which this test case proved.

Discussion
Comment by Gb - the "what's going on" section above only tells half the story.

User:Shunt010 is, as revealed by one of his edit summaries for a (now deleted) image uploaded by him, connected to eeWifi, on which he created a page earlier this month and which was speedily deleted under A7. He also, it's pretty clear, operates from time to time under the IP address 81.149.130.33, and his edits from that address include this one talk about the link between a telephone mast and eeWifi (subsequently removed by another editor and replaced here, with links added to both eeWifi and East Midlands Communications in the next edit. Those are removed by User:Jonobennett here, reinserted by the IP here, removed again here and reinserted again here.

The same IP has been repeatedly adding information about eeWifi to Stanton Hill including here, here, here and here. Finally, on MPT-1327, the IP has been adding information about one of East Midlands Communication's products here, here and then, as Shunt010, here - the last link inserted, whilst superficially a separate domain, redirects to East Midlands Communication's website.

Finally, to square the circle, Googling for eeWifi reveals a free eeWifi spot at 44-46 High Street, Stanton Hill (gosh), which just happens to be the address of East Midlands Communications. But then again, that's not particularly suprising when you consider that the eeWifi domain name is registered by, erm, East Midlands Communications.

So it's not really a case of being blacklisted - there's clearly any number of conflicts of interest in play, irrespective of the fact that the user is continually spamming links and companies whilst logged in and whilst logged out. In my view the warnings are more than appropriate, and trying to bring this to the Mediation Cabal whilst pleading innocent, well, isn't. GBT/C 15:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by shunt010

I'm not arguing most of these points. However, the three points which are under contention are:

1: The eeWifi in Stanton Hill is run as a non-profit system so the product can be tested and gives free Internet to places such as the Community Shop.

2: The use of MPT1327 for Taxi Dispatch operation is unconventional. I was putting a link for readers to understand more about this unusual application. It's not what MPT1327 was intended for and readers may find it a little confusing without seeing a product page. It's only like putting a link to Nintendo's homepage on the Nintendo Wii page I guess

3: There are 3 masts on Dorket Head, and the new third mast is only used by eeWifi, so I put this on to see if it was myself being targeted or just what I was putting.

Comment by Gb Taking them in order :

1. Noted, but eeWifi has already been deemed to be not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, hence why the article you created on it (in breach of the policy on conflicts of interest) was deleted. At best, therefore, the addition of the information about eeWifi to other articles doesn't add anything to those articles, and at worst it's inappropriately and unduly promoting eeWifi and / or EMC - particularly when adding external links to the companies. Either way, the information shouldn't be included.

2. It's not like putting a link to Nintendo's home page on the Nintendo Wii page - if it were like that, the link you'd be posting would be to Ofcom or whomever. You're posting a link to a product which uses the system specified in the article - if anything, it's more like posting a link to, say, a small CD player retailer on the Compact Disc article. The fact that you're involved (directly or indirectly) with EMC only makes the link even more inappropriate, and more like spamming. If someone comes along and posted a link to Richer Sounds at the foot of the CD player page, believe me, it wouldn't last long.

3. Given the above, you should bear in mind that it's frowned upon to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. It's not you being targeted, it's the information that you're posting - it's inappropriate and shouldn't be included. That's why, whether you're posting it when logged in, or when logged out, it's being removed. The fact that you're posting it both under a username and an IP only makes your behaviour look more determinedly like it's spamming.

Thanks. GBT/C 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by shunt010

1. Agreed then, if it is not notable at the current moment, it shall not be included

2. Agreed then, it is perhaps not necessary to put a link to the website. Perhaps more work on the article would be better, detailing the system to explain it better

3. I don't think I go under the proving a point here, since I still feel this was a suitable addition to the article. However I am on a shared IP, and looking at the history of this IP (such as messing about with articles such as "Rosemary Shrager" which I'm not responsible for), I can see the sense in being logged in. However, I still feel that the information about the 3rd new mast is relevant.

Comment by Gb

I think there's always merit in signing in - I wasn't attributing the vandalism edits of the IP to you, but if that IP comes back to you on a regular basis it's probable that your IP is being assigned from a pretty small pool...I would recommend always being sure you sign in to avoid any issues. How about putting in the info that there are three masts, rather than two, but leaving aside the question of ownership of those masts (as it's not particularly relevant to an article about a small Nottinghamshire town)?

Have we just managed to mediate these issues without actually using any mediators? ;-) GBT/C 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by shunt010

I think the problem about the IPs might come back to our best friend again... eeWifi! To keep costs down, all connections are run through NAT. It saves the cost of lots of public IP's, which mean we can choose lower cost ISP's for our source, and lowers the running costs dramatically, but does cause problems for such as this, since many other people share the same (static) public IP.

Perhaps you're right. I'll have to be more careful about what I add in future to Wikipedia, I may have been advertising and looking through the other topics open for moderation which mostly seem stupid, I think I may have been a bit hasty in clicking for moderation - how do we close the case?

Thanks all and sorry for the trouble