Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DanceScape

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC).

(DanceScape | talk | contributions)

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.

Description

User has made multiple edits to external links sections of pages related to dance (see user's contribution page). All links go to an apparently non-notable set of forums, at DanceScape.com. Given the username, this appears to be self-promotion.

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.)

contributions, all contributions through 15:36 on 11 Feb 2006. Each one adds a link to the same website, to a variety of pages.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to, especially point #3: "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates."

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Howdy! Adding external links to promote a website is considered spamming. Please see 1, especially point #3: "Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates." Considering that you've added your website's link to 20ish pages and counting, and haven't contributed any content to any of these pages, I'm starting to lose my ability to assume your edits are in good faith. Csari 15:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (from [1])

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Csari 15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)(This may be premature, but I'm out of reverts on some of the affected pages, so it seems like time for discussion of the problem). 'Update 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)' - no further activity from this user. Not sure if s/he lost interest, or what has occurred, but should we archive the RfC based on no further action of any sort from the user?[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

This is a badly formatted RfC, but is correct. The originator should be treated as a link spam vandal. Robert McClenon 08:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by McClenon

On the one hand, this RfC has links rather than diffs, so that it is difficult to see exactly what the pattern is. On the other hand, I can see that there is a problem. In fact, I would suggest that this user be treated as a link spam vandal. I suggest that a request be posted to WP:AIV.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

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.