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

I have almost nothing to do with this edit war. On June 1, I suggested that the parties stop edit warring. On June 3, I made my last edit to the article, which was a pretty straightforward and simple edit. Altogether, I don't think that I've made more than a half-dozen edits to the article over about 6 months.

I have avoided any contact with the article since June 3, mainly because I can't continue assuming good faith among the editors. Quite simply, it looks to me like everybody involved is acting like children.

The only policy issue that I know of involves linking to a comercial site, that probably is spam. The pictures of baseball cards are interesting, but they are there for sale. The pictures of the cards themselves could have been uploaded and put in the article (the cards were published before 1923) EXCEPT that the pictures of the cards include watermarks or sales info.

Please leave me out of this.

Smallbones 09:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much in the same way as SB, I have nothing to do with this edit war either. I only commented about a similar link I put on an unrelated page that I put in the context of this issue. I am embarrassed at all the personal attacking that is going on. For that reason, I absolutely refuse to be involved in this cabal. Thank you. And please, can we all just get along? All this infighting is ruining the credibility of the Baseball WikiProject and ruining the quality of very prominent articles that the WP follows. It's making me ashamed to be a part of the WikiProject. Anyway, just stop the insanity please. -- Transaspie 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is disgusting, but lets please clarify one thing. There is only one page where items are for sale. Everything on that page is marked sold and the rest are not available for sale. //18:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This page, right? It actually looks extremely tame...I was expecting that you'd purchase things online. It's basically contact information which can be use to buy stuff. The absurdity of it all is that the similar link I mentioned (which I use to display a baseball card that is referencing a fact in the article, a fact that actually can be verified on said page) has links to 40 different online card sellers on it, which you can purchase cards from online. Why am I not being criticized for this? Oh, that's right, because it's not "my site". It's a double standard for one user to criticize another for posting a link that may contain things that can be considered spam, but accept when another user links to a page that has lots of it. All this has devolved into is one user making attacks at another for posting an external link that another user may or may not be involved in, a site that would have a conflict of interest if it weren't for the fact that OTHERS THINK IT IS AN ACCEPTABLE LINK! One user doesn't think it is, and that user has turned all of this into a war. It's just ridiculous...and ridiculously trivial. -- Transaspie 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmobowl banned

Be aware that the chief proponent of the website in question, User:Tecmobowl, has since been banned, along with his sockpuppets User:El redactor and User:Long levi. Tecmobowl has been demonstrated to be the owner of the site, although he has only admitted to "knowing" the owner of the site. Baseball Bugs 09:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mediation still needed

There were two issues being discussed when this came here:

The first was the inclusion of pages like this as ELs.

No one contested that the site was in fact a fan site, but that was as far as we got. Some people thought that the site was a commercial site because of this, and some didn't. Some people thought that the information on the page was the equivalent to a list of statistics--unique information that couldn't be included in an article because of size. Some disagreed and thought that the information was irrelevant.

All mediation managed to do was get people to actually express those opinions--even if they were biased because of the personal issues at hand, it was a step up from straightforward personal attacks. It took forever just to get to the point of people expressing relevant opinions--real discussion was miles away, and the general consensus was that everyone was tired. This issue was resolved, if it can be called that not because the editors had discussed and come to any agreement, but because everyone was sick of it.

But the second issue to be discussed was the file center. Blacksoxfan hosts a lot of files, articles, contracts, etc that would be good references and ELs. The opinions expressed were that linking to these files were inappropriate because it was a commercial site. In the same discussion though, the same editors had affirmed that they were ok with, that they liked the links to another site--blackbetsy.com--which is linked to as both references and an EL. It's much the same case--blackbetsy, while a fan site, and while commercial definitely, hosts documents online that can be used as references and ELs and that are important. The article is still protected though little discussion is happening right now--people don't seem to have a problem with doing opposing things in virtually the same scenario, and they don't seem to have a problem with the page being protected indefinitely either.

They seem more concerned with going back and striking out all of Tecmo's comments in the last two weeks--unconcerned that makes it hell for anyone else trying to read the page. Can we please get help returning to some semblance of sanity? Miss Mondegreen talk 12:59, July 17 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the policy prohibiting that, and if you can't read it, perhaps there's a problem with your screen or your browser. In any case, it's very visible via the history. As you seem to be the lone crusader for the blocked user and his sockpuppets, that fact also should be taken into consideration by the mediator. Baseball Bugs 15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lone crusader? How about you and Epeefleche are the only people who find this acceptable: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Epeefleche taking Tecmo's indefinite ban a little too well--attempting to undo everything--comments, edits, etc Miss Mondegreen talk 00:24, July 19 2007 (UTC)