Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mikeabundo

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Insists on including a link to a video from his own website on the Numa Numa article. Refuses to discuss why this video is not appropriate (viz: the sound is so bad you can't even tell it's Dragostea din Tei, and the video is so bad you can't even tell they're cosplayers), and reverts on sight without any explanation.

It's worth noting that a vanity article the user wrote about himself (Mike Abundo) was deleted, and that there is some controversy on the Cosplay article about his repeated attempts to promote his own website in the article, which is what he appears to be doing with this video as well.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)


 * 1) Having rewritten the entire article, and checked each of the links, I remove the cosplay video link. Mikeabundo restores it:
 * 2) I remove it again, with the edit summary "Remove cosplay link again. This video is of such poor quality that it is totally useless in terms of being informative. you can barely see or hear what's happening. We don't need every numa video." Mikeabundo restores it
 * 3) I remove it again, and place a note on the article talk page giving my rationale. Mikeabundo restores it again  I begin to wonder whether he's actually in the video
 * 4) I ask Mikeabundo to explain why he wants to keep the link on the page, given how crappy the video is. He refuses and restores the link
 * 5) And once again
 * 6) Admin User:KI removes the link, and places a warning on Mikeabundo's talk page . Mikeabundo ignores this, and once again restores the link without explanation.
 * 7) KI reverts, and Mikeabundo once again restores the link without explanation.

Each time, Mikeabundo has refused to discuss this, and is now accusing me of attacking him personally. He has refused to comment on the fact that the video is from his own website.

See also Talk:Numa Numa, Talk:Cosplay, the disputed video], which links from Pinoycosplay.com, Mikeabundo's website.

Also, see this link, evidence that Mikeabundo, in his role as Admin of Pinoycosplay.com, uploaded the video in question to that site and is promoting it.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}


 * Ownership of Articles
 * Consensus- This is a guideline, not policy, but still relevant.
 * WP:NOT, specifically, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Talk:Numa Numa.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Exploding Boy 02:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KI 15:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
 (aeropagitica)   (talk)   06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

Users who endorse this summary:

Response by
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Mangojuice
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

There is no siginificant policy violation in terms of user behavior here. This is simply an edit disagreement, with no claim that it has gotten heated or out of control. I think the fact that the users bringing this RFC quote that "Wikipedia is not a repository of links" is quite hypocritical: if that's the case, why is there an indiscriminate list of amateur Numa Numa videos in the article?

Users endorsing this view:


 * Mangojuice 21:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Thatcher131
I agree with Mangojuice in principal but not with the use of the term "hypocritical." We can AGF that Exploding boy was trying to maintain some quality standard regarding the sites that are linked to. However, unless there was some consensus process that determined which Numa Numa videos would be linked to and which would not, the exclusion of any one video is largely arbitrary and based solely on Exploding boy's definition of "quality." Exploding boy also appears to have some ownership issues of his own, likely related to his having rewritten the article. Mikeabundo should disclose any personal interest in the video he is promoting. The two of them should submit a joint request for an article RfC to determine community consensus on how many external links to include and any particular inclusion criteria.

Users endorsing this view:


 * Thatcher131 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that; I don't think either of the nominators were acting in bad faith, just not in accordance with policy. Mangojuice 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.