Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Call centre

Rebuttal

OK, I'm done trading barbs with this individual who refuses personal communications in favour of a public stage and posts no means to be contacted. I will let the Committee decide. Enough of the back-and-forth. It would obviously not end. I could take his statements apart piece by piece, but I have better things to do after work. I request a decision without further ado.--Achim 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Calltech Statement 1

I User:Calltech have removed links presented by User:Achim because they represent link Spam as defined by Wikipedia. I will not even dignify the attempts by this user to question my motives since I have not contributed any opinion or text to the article in question Call centre. By questioning my motives, this user is attempting to divert attention from the topic at hand, whether his links in this article are spam. I have no personal opinion and presented none about this topic. I also have no interest in suppressing neutral information - I do, however, strongly object to this user's link spam, however.

• A) Links such as the one entered abound on Wikipedia. The interpretation presented by User:Calltech I see as his opinion.
• B) To remove information about organised labour in this industry is motivated by what, exactly? If he has no opinion, then just what is the motive for removing things? The inroads made by Steelworkers and other unions into the call centre industry are a matter of fact. I can only see an employer's motives for the suppression of the information, especially, since it is only factual in nature, not one of advocacy of a point of view. Enough of those points are made in the article concerning common labour management issues in this industry, like many others. Now he's backtracking and advocating a single line item, but previously, he wanted it all removed, and did so, arbitrarily. I offered direct dialogue, which he refused, choosing the public route instead.
• C) His designation of the link to Local 6520's website as SPAM is his alone. There are many such links on Wikipedia, in other articles. If User:Calltech has strong objections, then why would this not be based on an opinion. There appears to be way too much emotion behind the actions, such as simply reverting an edit without even making contact and then refusing the offered contact.

• • Wikipedia External links makes clear what types of links are spam or should be avoided. User:Achim violates three of these standards.
  • Item 1 - "Any site that does not provide a unique resource...". User:Achim's web page provides virtually no information other than links to another commercial website, a community, and a link BACK to this Wikipedia article relative to call centres. Its purpose is to provide information about a specific local Steelworker's Union.
  • Item 3 - "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..." User:Achim has demonstrated a level of control and contribution to this website and clearly can not claim neutrality.
  • Item 4 - "Links that are added to promote a site..." User:Achim clearly demonstrated this violation by repeatedly adding his website both in the article section as well as in the new section "External link" which was created solely to promote his website.

• • Citing "Others do it, so can I" is childish and does not justify these links. Many editors spend a lot of time removing link spam. A review of this article's history points out the other spam links that have been removed. User:Achim has not been singled out as he claims. His links on Wikipedia are SPAM. Calltech 00:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Calltech Statement 2

I removed these links several times, the second time recommending User:Achim that he place his request for link and POV in the article's Discussion Section as is Wikipedia's recommended approach to resolving these types of disputes. User:Achim chose to ignore this recommendation and proceeded to claim he was in the right and did not need to submit to peer review - he then simply reinstated his links which I again removed. This resulted in this dispute going to Arbitration rather than the recommended process of article discussion. The links in question that I removed were included both in the text of the article and also under a new section created by this user called "External links". There were no other links in this section.

• A) There he goes again. Removed links several times, as if from a position of moral or higher authority. The recommendations from a fellow editor are just that, recommendations. Apart from that, the tone is indicative.

• B) The procedure for dispute resolution starts with communication, which User:Calltech refused. That, exclusively, is the reason for the mediation request.

• c) Many articles have external link sections. That is nothing out of the ordinary, just a good way or organising matters. The creation of such a subsection can serve to hold other such links that are related to the subject matter. User:Calltech's representation of this, I deem, once again, as indicative.

User:Calltech Statement 3

The following is the reason I removed these links: 1. The Website referenced in the link was a geocities.com sub directory that had minimal information regarding call centers and the information contained in the article. It provided absolutely no new information or value to a visitor to this site other than the apparent promotion of a local union. When I first visited it, the site presented a message "Under Construction". It presented a logo and graphic for Local 6520, United Steel Workers. The only reference to Call Centre was a link back to the Wikipedia article! Therefore, the website manager and User:Achim appeared to be coordinating the exchange of links.

• A) User:Calltech fails to indicate how a local union that is locked in a contract with one call centre can possibly promote itself, as it is a cóntractual and legal impossibility for a local to spread.

• B) Many websites have links to Wikipedia articles. What is supposed to be so bad about that?

• C) The referenced website is also linked to that of the United Steelworkers International. The labour relations issues are at the heart of it all and this does not differ much, whether it's a steel plant, a call centre or a food processing plant.

• D) Once again, the fact that a website is under construction is pretty much a given for the majority of websites. What is the point?

User:Calltech Statement 4

2. User:Achim accuses me of having a nefarious motive. He failed however, to divulge his own relationship with this website and labor union represented in this website. According to this site, User:Achim is an active member of local 6520 and also an active contributor to this website. Therefore, he has motives of self promotion, the promotion of a website he either controls, manages or contributes, and the promotion of a local labor union in Toronto in which he is an active member. It is very likely his motives are a combination of the above. These also violate Wikipedia's rules against links to self promoting websites. This site also links to an active commercial call center organization where I suspect User:Achim is employed.

• A) Union membership and employment anywhere are not impediments to editing articles on Wikipedia. How does User:Calltech define self-promotion? Is there anything about how wonderful I am anywhere? The site lists points of contact for its members to be able to reach members of the executive and shop stewards, in case they need help, as well as procedures to use so they can do so within the confines of the CBA. The fact that this exists and how it can work is of value to people who have an interest in labour relations in this industry.

• B) A website for a local union is not a promotional thing at all. How could it be? How would that work? Even if employers were tripping over one another to sign up with a union of any type, they certainly would not be in contact with the local, but, instead, the international office. Apart from that, employers are usually forced into being organised. How this can be seen as self-promotion is beyond me.

User:Calltech Statement 5

3. It appears User:Achim is expressing a POV in this article and then attempting to support this with a reference to a website that he makes contributions or controls. He never discloses this obvious conflict of interest.

• A) Contents of a union website are subject to executive decisions, not any one member. That is a matter of how unions govern themselves under the law. This fact is quite obvious to anyone familiar with the realm.

• B) The executive of the local is legally liable for the contents of its publications. Examples of this can be found under the minutes published on the site, from a General Membership meeting. Even those are not published until approved by the membership, by motion, discussion and vote. This fact is obvious from the website and is a matter of public knowledge.

User:Calltech Statement 6

4. Finally, the topic of call center unionization is extremely minor when considering the entire spectrum of call center related information. If anything, it probably deserves a single line item or reference, but certainly not the prominence that User:Achim has elevated this topic. There are 10s of thousands of websites that provide call center information, training, scheduling, products, services, consulting, etc. on the web that are NOT linked into this article. These websites provide volumes of useful information about call centers. For user:Achim to put TWO links to his own controlled website for purposes of self promotion in this article is absurd and borders on arrogance and is in clear violation of Wikipedia's spam guidelines.

• This is another example of statements far outside logic and the laws that apply to this realm, as stated above. It is also in direct contrast with User:Calltech's assertion of having no opinions on the matter, followed by his refusal to communicate directly with me.

• • FACTS: The call center article encompasses a wide breadth of issues and topics. Using metrics from Yahoo! (which is the only major search engine that publishes these statistics), one finds the following search result statistics. During the month of August, 2006, the term "call centre" and "call center" (which Yahoo! treats synonomously) and which is the title of this article Call centre was searched 59,970 times followed by "call center software" at 7991 times. "Call center" with any combination of "union" or "unionisation" (which is the title of the disputed section of this article) was searched a total of 31 times! Projecting this to Wikipedia is only natural and certainly not "far outside logic" as stated above. The prominence that this topic has been afforded far exceeds the relevance to what Wikipedia visitors are seeking. I will again repeat for User:Achim I have no opinion (Pro or Con) about call center unionization and have never made a POV position on this topic in either the article or in these discussions. I do have an opinion about link spamming on Wikipedia and self promotion that this user endorses. If you look at the history of this article, you will see numerous attempts by other users such as User:Achim to provide links to websites promoting products and advocating positions that have been removed by other editors. These editors are not biased one way or other about the topic on these websites. They are simply following Wikipedia's guidelines against link spamming. Calltech 14:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Calltech Statement 7

5. Therefore, I STRONGLY recommend removal of User:Achim POV and links from this article. I also recommend that this topic be reduced to a line item under an existing section.

• I will defer to the mediation committe's decision as to whether or not my mentioning of the inroads made by the labour movement into this industry and the link to Local 6520 as an example of this are POV. User:Calltech unilaterally states that my contributions are POV. I ask for the committee's decision on the matter.