Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson

Who are the involved parties?
User:Tecmobowl User:Baseball Bugs, User:Irishguy User:Smallbones User:Miss Mondegreen User:Lsi john, User:Sportsdude820

What is the involved article(s)?
Shoeless Joe Jackson -- main article of issue, where discussion has mainly taken place

also

Eddie Cicotte, Abe Attell, Buck Weaver, Lefty Williams, Fred McMullin, Chick Gandil

these articles have all been affected and would all be affected, but no discussion has taken place on any of these talk pages--some of these don't even have real talk pages

also

Black Sox Scandal

What's going on?
Tecmobowl inserted links to a site that he allegedly maintains on a number of articles.

Shoeless Joe example: blacksoxfan.com

There has been revert warring for a long time on a number of articles (but no discussion, at least not on article talk pages) about the EL. On June 1, Smallbones brought this issue, and another to the talk page and asked for opinions from other editors.

The early discussion there is a little confusing--at a couple points, both I and Tecmo (and possibly others) got a little confused--conversation was happening on so many talk pages, that there are multiple comments that editors (myself included say latter "ignore what I said earlier" or, "oh, I didn't see that").

Things straightened out of sorts, but most of the discussion, especially more and more recently is about who, and not what.


 * "'It doesn't matter if it's the greatest website in the world...He and his website are inseparable, so talking about one is talking about the other.' -- Baseball Bugs"
 * "Miss Mondegreen: 'I can't even count the number of times I've quoted WP:EL for you and explained why it did fit, so know that you have reviewed it and disagree, please explain why.' Baseball Bugs: 'Plenty of people agreed Fangraphs was a good site. But Tecmo doesn't, therefore it's out. That tells you all you need to know about that guy: It's his way, or no way....'"

There's plenty of real content issues that need to be discussed. This is not straightforward by any regard, and even if not used as an EL, the site has a file center, with documents and photos that are most likely public domain that would be of great resource to various articles.

What would you like to change about that?
Real discussion needs to happen about this, there should probably be an Rfc filed about the site (and how it should or shouldn't be used), but until editors are willing to discuss content and not focus on their issues with Tecmo, there seems to be no point. Tecmo has said that he will stay away from the issue and hopefully that will help.

Administrative notes
See also: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 WikiProject Baseball
 * (I'm on break but I'll throw this in real quick). I actually don't think we need to have this case go through, since the actions disputed were done by a now-banned user. Unless there's still a purpose to go over it (which I have no problem hearing), I'll close this in a couple days. Wizardman  15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm replying here because I'm not sure where else to. Tecmo had originally added the link, true, which was problematic because he had a COI involving it.  But once it was discussed on the talk page (as EL COI issues should be handled), two other editors, Lsi John and myself thought that the link should be added and added it ourselves.  It was the edit warring that occurred then which led to this cabal case.  The discussion has been contentious at best, now that it has finally occurred and Lsi John has left discussion and I have reluctantly agreed to, for the moment, not use the link--I feel that this decision has been reached in some part via wikibullying, but I, like Lsi John am tired.  But the reason we need continued mediation is that we were discussing not just the usage of one link as an EL, but the linking to files hosted by the site as references and ELs.  The opinions voiced against this would rule out this, as well as current references and ELs, but at the same time, the same people voiced opinions to keep the current references and ELs, regardless that they violated the rule that they have an issue with in re blacksoxfan.  I've gone into detail about the current issue on the talk page.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  00:21, July 19 2007 (UTC)
 * As Mondegreen well knows, the one editor who had really been pushing for that site, User:Tecmobowl, has since been permanently blocked for sockpuppeterring and disruption. The site in question has been demonstrated to be his own personal website, for the purpose of promoting and selling baseball cards, thus it is spam and is against the rules. Baseball Bugs 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As Baseball Bugs knows two other editors myself included inserted the link afterwards and I asked for this cabal case because certain editors have an obsession with Tecmo. Yes, Tecmo is banned, and the obsession continues.  Why can I not go a day on Wikipedia without hearing you or Epeefleche whining about Tecmo or accusing him or something?  You said it yourself, he's GONE!  Get over it, move on and stop blaming him for all of your woes.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  08:58, July 26 2007 (UTC)
 * I have said over and over again that that link has no value whatsoever except as a source of revenue for User:Tecmobowl and his sockpuppets. Baseball Bugs 09:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Mondegreen implies a willingness to help be a proxy for Tecmobowl, which would be against the rules. Baseball Bugs 07:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not against any rules I know for Tecmobowl to e-mail me. It is against the rules for Tecmo himself to revert Epeefleche's problematic edits, and as everyone agreed that they were not enforcing WP:BAN but in violation of WP:BAN, but as no user had the time or energy to go through all of his recent contributions and check every single one, I suggested that Tecmo would be able to find them more easily. Epeefleche in large part got away with his violation of WP:BAN, and our inability to enforce the rules is more likely to produce sockpuppetry.
 * I implied a willingness to help figure out ways to enforce WP:BAN--in terms of not taking advantage of a ban--to help prevent sockpuppets and other behavioral problems. Please note that it was a suggestion, others disagreed with me and I said fine.  I haven't gotten any e-mail from Tecmobowl, and if he does e-mail me with a list of diffs like I'd suggested I'll post it to ANI as I'd always intended.  The site is not a commercial site, and even if it were, you have double standards--there's another site on that very article that is most definitely commercial and it plays the exact same role, and users have no problem with it.  Frankly Baseball bugs, it really doesn't matter.  You've cried problematic editor at every step of the way, when not only is it often not true, or true but not the problem in this case, but it's really irrelevant.  All you've ever had to do was stick to the content.  We could resolve this very quickly if that ever happens I imagine.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  10:22, July 27 2007 (UTC)
 * My advice as Mediator is to take this to the Meditation Committee. After reviewing everything and reading over the last AN/I thread, I believe that would be a more appropriate place for this dispute. ~   Wi ki  her mit  22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All over one External Link. Maybe this article can set a Wikipedia record for the longest protection period for the most trivial issue. Baseball Bugs 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Straight from WP:EL: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." Going along with policy, I wouldn't use that link. I'm sure the same information is on another good website. ~   Wi ki  her mit  03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the opinion, in general, of nearly everyone... except for Tecmo (whose site it was) and Mondegreen (who claims it has some value to card collectors). I think one other user, Lsi John, defended it at one point, but he has since absented himself from the discussion. Baseball Bugs 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "and let neutral and independent Wikpedia editors decide whether to add it"--Tecmo is gone, and even when he wasn't, this was never an issue of his COI or SPAM--not once it got here. This came here because editor Lsi John, and then myself both neutral independent Wikipedia editors added the site--and it was still being reverted based on Tecmo's involvement and WP:SPAM/WP:COI.  In fact, Baseball bugs and others persist in calling it spam.  I'm afraid I just don't understand--I've read the EL section of WP:SPAM and WP:COI and WP:EL several times and all of them say that it's a problem if an editor linked to the site adds it, or if the site is there for promotional purposes only.  I came here because two editors (myself included) added the link back because they thought it added value to the article and no one would discuss the issue of the EL other than crying SPAM.   No one has discussed the issue of file linking yet either.  If you can explain why this is SPAM, then I'll drop that part of the request and only request mediation for discussion of file linking.  But every policy I read points to this not being spam.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  09:17, August 1 2007 (UTC)
 * Several admins looked at it and said it was spam. Tecmo and his sockpuppets continually tried to add it back to this and other sites. In fact, posting that site was Tecmo's first activity on wikipedia in the summer of 2006. Mondegreen's best argument for keeping it is that it provides counts of how many baseball cards were issued for Shoeless Joe. That kind of information is only of value to collectors, and that's the audience for that link... whose purpose is to sell baseball cards. What that has to do with the life and career of Joe Jackson is anybody's guess. Baseball Bugs 12:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok..that's an interesting argument--saying that it isn't on topic, or providing important information. And worth discussing.  But even if it were true, it still wouldn't qualify as spam--the editors who added it don't have a COI, and it isn't there to promote the site.  Now your point is worth discussing, though I'm not sure it's right--clearly the information was a value to me and to Lsi John, and I can't speak for Lsi John, but I'm not a card collector.  I found it an interesting measure of a career, especially in Shoeless's Joe's case, who had cards issued after his banning.  At any rate, this is the stuff I've wanted to be discussing all along--the stuff that hasn't been, and we haven't even raised yet the issue of file linking.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  07:55, August 2 2007 (UTC)