Support

1. -- Holderca1 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

What is the involved article(s)?

fangraph links - The fangraphs link is the main site of contention, but the discussion extends to cover articles that include WP:EL's to thebaseballcube br bullpen. Potentially, any baseball related article could be involved. // User:Tecmobowl 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• The issue is discussed at [2], and the sections immediately prior to and following that section.-- Epeefleche 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• • comment: fangraphs is a revenue generating site, using Pay Per Click, thebaseballcube is a commercial site, outright, as it sells stuff, http://www.baseball-reference.com solicits advertisers via http://www.federatedmedia.net. These are all, to varying degrees, commercial sites, what is it about these sites that makes them fit this policy:

"External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic" ?

quote from WP:SOAP . User:Pedant 00:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

What's going on?

There is a huge debate with regards to the aforementioned sites and their use in WP:EL sections. The debate has spread to a number of pages, involved many wiki violations by all of the major "contributors" to the discussion.

The debate has popped up most on the named article in this case. People are very quick to attach blame to one editor or another. WP:AGF has been tossed out the door by most, and the discussions are very disjointed, convoluted, and sporadic. // User:Tecmobowl 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Actually, while Tecmo has been blocked 4 times this month for Wiki violations relating to this discussion, I am not aware of any of the other editors being blocked. Furthermore, at [3] [4] the admin just wrote: "It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block."-- Epeefleche 13:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)) reply

• • I'm not aware of other editors being blocked but that seems to be an accurate assessment.
  • Tecmo has deleted 100s of ELs to baseball bios, but most of it has been general cleaning per WP:EL. He removes duplicate links, dead links, pages to open wikis, pages with no unique information (there are dozens of articles using ELs to give people information that should be in the article/as sources)--none of these edits have been outright contested, save for that he has also been cleaning statistics sites. Many bios have 3 or 4 or sometimes even 5 or 6 statistics sites as ELs, and while the statistics are unique, 6 sites is excessive and they generally duplicate most of the information. Which means WP baseball has to make a decision. What statistics sites do they think are acceptable for ELs? Should a blanket decision be made for all articles, or should they leave which one or ones are used up to the individual articles? If they go with the former, which it appears that they are doing by the wikiproject discussion, then the sites need to be discussed in terms of the WP:EL. An attempt is ongoing but there's a refactored mishamsh, which brings in comments from various times (which means that they are at least slightly out of context), and because they've been copied into a big block of text, it's impossible to reply to users. Another user seems to have given up on discussion altogether and created a sraw poll on all four ELs--yes to include them all, no to include none of them (completely missing the point of the earlier discussion), a straw poll that is a vote. No comments, just voting, missing the point of straw polls. More time has been spent arguing about why not to start new sections, or moving them once created than discussing the actual issue, and this needs to go in a different direction. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:15, June 15 2007 (UTC)
    • This current state of this article speaks volumes. First of all, while I have been banned twice (with extensions issued in both instances), it is not relevant to this discussion. Stick to the content, not the people! // Tecmobowl 15:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • You completely misread the straw poll, if you said oppose meant that you don't support having those specific links, not to not include them entirely. This discussion has been going on for several weeks and is there really anything else to discuss other than rehashing the same thing over and over? Also, when I said no comments, I meant on the same line as the vote, it clutters things up otherwise. Also, voting has resolved issues in the past, see WP:SRNC. -- Holderca1 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I completely disagree with Miss M's characterizations of Tecmo's "cleansing." A review of the discussion on the Baseball Wikiproject page will clarify matters. Rather than take up space here, I will simply refer interested readers to that discussion. I agree with Holderca1's above observation that this discussion has been going on for 3 weeks, and has been discussed in great detail, and I think that one can look at the talk page and observe the consensus on the 4 urls -- though Tecmo refuses to respect it.-- Epeefleche 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Behavior is relevant. There's more to wikipedia than just content. Cooperation and open communications, among the wikipedia community, are also important. Baseball Bugs 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Tecmo is back deleting the ELs that are the very subject of the discussion. See [5] This is highly disruptive. I have asked him to stop. He has refused. Instead he writes that "WP:EL supersedes that discussion. That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter." This, despite the overwhelming consensus on the Baseball Talk page expressing a view that differs from his. It would be helpful if an admin were to adress it.-- Epeefleche 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I am going to say this now, I am not an administrator (before anyone gets the idea that I am). If there is consensus, it should be followed. My job is to create a compromise, not a binding solution to the problem. Fun Pika 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I failed to create a compromise. :( Fun Pika 18:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, you have failed to help the cause. The poll that was put up was grossly misused as all 4 sites should not have been lumped into one. A consensus has not been arrived at, as I stayed out of the conversation for an extended period of time and hoped to let others actually discuss the content. This was still more bitching and moaning. Above and beyond, WP:EL supersedes this. I am not going to revisit this until a focused conversation that discusses the facts of the content can be held. Moving text around, breaking up comments, and splattering this topic on 30 different pages does not help. // Tecmobowl 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well what did you want me to do tell them to "Remove them, deal with it". Telling by certain comments on this page it does not appear you are willing to come to a reasonable compromise to make everybody happy. Fun Pika 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It is curious that Tecmo maintains that the issue was fragmented. He in fact fragmented it, over my objections. See for example [6]. See also [7], in which editor Holderca1 observed: "This is beyond out of control and bordering insanity.... in one breath Tecmo complains that the conversation is split up over multiple locations, then he procedes to make a new section and starts discussing there."-- Epeefleche 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

What would you like to change about that?

I'm sure everyone will agree that the current attempts at discussion have failed. We need to evaluate which of the "debated" sites is worthy of consideration for inclusion of a given article and why it is worthy. Then we need to consider if they should be used in conjunction with sites that are already accepted by the community or if they should replace said sites. Intelligent discourse based solely on the merits of the content needs to take place. // User:Tecmobowl 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Tecmo has deleted 100s of ELs to baseball bios, without consensus, this month. We have polled editors intially with regard to 4 of the baseball stats urls. Consensus has been reached that all 4 are unique, and should be included. Tecmo, who deleted Fangraphs ELs claiming that they did not contain unique info, still refuses to recognize the consensus of their uniqueness, or the strong evidence of their uniqueness. Tecmo continues, even as of today -- immediately upon release from his most recent block, to delete such ELs. He has not agreed to restore urls that he has deleted where, upon discussion, it is found that there is no consensus for their deletion. I would like Tecmo to stop deleting those ELs. I would also like him to restore all ELs that he deleted of any of those 4 urls. If he fails to do these things, in accordance with today's finding (mentioned above) that he it is clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further disruptive behavior should result in a lengthy block, I believe that such he should be blocked for a lengthy period of time. We should then proceed on that project talk page to discuss the other urls, see whether there is consensus for deletion or not of any of them, and act in accordance with the consensus.-- Epeefleche 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'd like to see a new section started, and on-topic, discussion happen for each of the ELs in question. I'd also like to see the discussion keep WP:EL in mind. It's all well and good if there are great things about all of the sites, but they may not be good ELs--that's why we have guidelines and discussing the sites in that context is especially important. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:17, June 15 2007 (UTC)

• We already have sufficient input on those four urls for an admin to review the discussion, and guide us. Miss M, as to those 4, I believe that you are beating this to death. Let's have the consensus respected, and the evidence respected, and move on to consideration of the other ELs on the talk page, with help from an admin if necessary (again).-- Epeefleche 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• If nothing else, I think we agree that baseball-reference, as it's the most comprehensive one, should be used as a refererence in articles as opposed to an el. From there, we can look at the others. Of course that means it should be an EL, i don't think anyone had problems with that. Should've made that clearer.-- Wizardman 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• I added Epeefleche to the list of editors involved--I don't know why no one added him, or why he never added himself--he's been to this page to comment a lot and add other editors who "have expressed interest". As this started out as a massive edit war between Tecmo and Epeefleche ranging over numerous pages (and covering far more than just these ELs) he should certainly be listed here. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:22, June 21 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response

• I am opening this case. Fun Pika 18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It has come to my attention that Tecmo has once again been deleting more ELs. Fun Pika 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Telling by the behavior of User:Tecmobowl, it is virtually impossible to create a compromise. I am going to close this mediation cabal request. My suggestions are to either goto Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard to request a baseball topic community ban on Tecmo or go to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for a binding solution, one that the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee can not give. Fun Pika 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Request for Sanctions -- Indefinite Block. NB: As suggested by the mediator above, I have filed at [8], the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, under User:Tecmobowl, a request for an indefinite block. -- Epeefleche 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

An indefinite block on Tecmobowl has been imposed at the above community sanction noticeboard. The decision, which can be found in full at the above url, read in main part as follows: "Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments, User:Tecmobowl is indefinitely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR."-- Epeefleche 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Administrative notes

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