Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-09 solar cell vendor citation

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Solar power satellite (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Cfrjlr (talk · contribs)
Parties involved	User:Bookandcoffee (talk), User:Veinor (talk)
Mediator(s)	Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Comment	Requestor conceded issue. Consensus is to exclude the link.

Mediation Case: solar cell vendor citation

Please observe Wikipedia: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: Charles 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: ...

Solar power satellite

Who's involved?: ...

What's going on?: ...

thet wo users: Veinor and Bookandcoffee insist on removing a mention of a specific solar cell vendor (Spectrolab), they claim it is advertising.

What would you like to change about that?: ...

The reference to Spectrolab should be reinstated. It is not advertising. I have no connection with Spectrolab (past, present or expected). I believe they produce the highest efficiency solar cells on the market.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: ...

I do not mind either way.

Mediator response

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Persistent linkspamming is not permitted as a matter of policy, taking your complaint to MEDCAB is a waste of editors time and effort, as well as a deplorable method to try and circumvent policy. The material Charles has been adding is blatant linkspam, totally in contravention of WP:SPAM and I suspect WP:COI. He's extremely fortunate he's not looking at {{indefblocked}} on his userpage at the moment. I recommend this case to be dismissed at the earliest possible opportunity, that Charles be firmly reminded that his edits to Wikipedia must fully comply with policy and that he read WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:COI before making any further edits to the project. -- Nick ^t 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional response

I am disappointed by the response but of course will comply.

I have not engaged in "Persistent linkspamming", that is a gross exaggeration. This is the first time I have run into any issue like this on Wikipedia. I had been told that the community were generally tolerant of inexperience. I do not really understand the arbitration/mediation process, this is all new to me.

I find the policy concerning external links to be confusing, and I really do not understand the basis of it. But clearly there is a lot of strong feelings about it, so I will avoid external links in general from now on. That does rather limit one's ability to put in citations, I was merely trying to help improve the quality of some articles which had been flagged as not having enough citations and footnotes. As I had explained, I have no connection whatsoever to the particular company which I was attmepting to cite

I also find it rather difficult to tell who are "legitimate" administrators, and who are just regular users.Charles 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]