Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-22 Absinthe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Absinthe State: Open Requested By: Owl2hagrid Other Parties: Kafziel, Ari, Alanmoss Mediated By: User:Ultimus Comments: In progress

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-11-22 Absinthe 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-11-22 Absinthe

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Owl2hagrid 07:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Owl2Hagrid

Where is the issue taking place?

... Absinthe page External links section (Absinthe external links, Talk:Absinthe#External_Links_Guidelines)

Who's involved?

... Kafziel, Ari, Alanmoss

What's going on?

... Myself and other editors have tried to add the Absinthe Buyers Guide to the External links section on the Absinthe page. As soon as it is added, the editors mentioned above removes the link. I was told in March of 2006 by Kafziel that commercial sites are not allowed, at the same time, these editors add, support and protect a group of links to commercial sites in this section. The links that they allow are of a group of commercial absinthe and absinthe accessories vendors that work closely together, in fact, these editors have close ties to the owners of these sites. The owners of these sites are in competition with the Absinthe Buyers Guide, and they are working to keep the guide out of the Wikipedia at all cost. If you read the discussions pages, you will see the overwhelming attacks made against the Absinthe Buyers Guide by these editors, including wild accusations.

What would you like to change about that?

... I would like to have the Absinthe Buyers Guide added in the External links section to have fair representation. And if commercial sites are not permitted, then they can all be removed.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

... You can reach me at the following email address: owl2hagrid@gmail.com

[edit] Mediator response

• First off, to all involved parties, please try to keep a cool head and keep in mind WP:AGF. Accusing each other of WP:COI and WP:SOCK won't get anyone anywhere. I am still reading the relevant pages, and will be by with a response shortly. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You have asked how you can contact the complainant privately. Are you also able to contact those who he/she is complaining about privately? Alanmoss 06:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• owl2hagrid did not say they would rather resolve this discreetly, so I see no reason to do so. If this assumption is wrong, please correct me, Owl. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

I don't know if this goes here, but it seems to fit. I should first of all say that I am somewhat more biased than I would have been a week ago, since I am now involved in an absinthe business (www.absinthe-suisse.com) As such I would love to have a direct external link from the main Wikipedia article. Up to recently (and I worked for another absinthe until early October), I went along with the concensus of minimal external links, especially to vendors. I am concerned that there are now many, many links to one organisation (3 external links to Fee Verte/associated sites, 4 references which go straight through to Fee Verte). And these all link through to the commercial sites run by the owner of the forums/information site. There is also one external link to absintheonline and one reference to absintheonline: this company has a financial involvement with Fee Verte.

I probably don't need to add too much more about absinthebuyersguide. Most of its links go to one vendor, and there is obviously a financial/advertising element here.

So two possible compromises:-

1. Allow external links for all of us. I would go along with a few for Fee Verte etc, but I think there are too many at the moment.

OR

2. Allow external links for none of us (well maybe just one to Fee Verte).

Sorry to make the matter a bit more complicated than it seemed, but I think there needs to be a level playing field (hope that English expression makes sense to any American readers).

Would the mediator mind if I added an external link to absinthe-suisse.com while the decision is being considered? My competitors are getting a big advantage over me in the peak pre-Christmas season, and I think it unfair that they should benefit if I cannot also do so. Alanmoss 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally think this should have anything to do with the commercial aspects of each site or with ensuring a level playing field for vendors. External links should supply unique, in-depth, and accurate information not contained in the article. If it's only a vendor without such content, then I don't think it should be there. If it's just a site that contains info easily found in much greater depth on other sites, then I don't think it should be there. And if a site has inaccurate information I don't think it belongs. Instead of looking at who runs what, let's look at the actual CONTENT provided by the external links.

• Virtual Absinthe Museum: online museum of vast amounts of vintage absinthe paraphernalia.
• Fee Verte: in-depth, comprehensive FAQ and sophisticated, in-depth user review database.
• The Wormwood Society: collection of info regarding legality in the United States.
• Absinthe.se: Not sure that it has totally unique info strictly relevant to the article that is not covered in greater depth elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong. I love the site but I'm not sure it belongs.
• Thujone.info: Detailed scientific information on thujone and links to articles.

It might look bad that VAM, FV, and T.info are owned by the same person but I still think that the content is what's most important. I think the article would suffer if they were removed. And regarding ABG, I just don't think it currently adds anything. -- Peridotmetal 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This concept of "fairness" that keeps being raised is a misunderstanding of what external links on Wikipedia are for. The point isn't to provide equal benefits to all commercial interests involved; it's to provide informative and useful links to Wikipedia's users. That's not just a matter of personal opinion, it's part of Wikipedia's guideline on external links. When we include a link to a commercial or ad-supported site because it contains useful information, that doesn't mean a competitor's site that simply promotes its own products should also be linked. Each link needs to be evaluated on its own merit, based on its own content.

Alanmoss, I'm sorry but you're specifically asking to include a link in order to increase sales, and the guideline is very clear that that's *not* a valid reason to include a link. —Celithemis 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the others. One reason I have wanted to avoid commercial links as much as possible is to avoid vendors wanting to use wikipedia as advertising. I don't think we should either cater to vendors or reduce the information in the article.

All the links to Feeverte are valid in my opinion. One could go away if really needed. A couple people have brought up the issue that the same person owns three of the sites, but I don't see that as a problem as long as the sites provide proper references or fit an external link. It should be noted none are actual vendor sites but link to the owners vendor site. One fix that may not be liked is to increase the number of links to oxygenee but point them to the information instead of the main page.

I remember changing the absintheonline link, maybe that was a different page or it got hit by reverts. -- Ari 02:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am being honest about why I want a link. Maybe honesty is not the best policy. Does ABG wants a link because it wants to provide information, or because it wants to tell its sponsor it is listed here (and thus increase sales both of the ABG and of its sponsor)? Let's also be clear: all the Fee Verte sites are subsidiary businesses of http://www.oxygenee.com/ The fact is that it is organised in such a way that it takes a couple of clicks to get from any of the links provided directly to the shops. Which is why I also suggested Compromise 2 above. Alanmoss 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Other than not being fair to competing businesses, which is irrelevant on Wikipedia, I don't see how that matters. Oxygenee has done the work to gather and compile the mountains of info you find at his sites. Yes, they link to commercial sites. But Fee Verte not only links to Oxy's commercial sites, but also to Alandia, LDF, FSC, Frenchman LTD, Lion, and eAbsinthe. So it would probably be more appropriate to have your business added there than here.

It would be appropriate but Oxy says he needs to know that we have a good standard of service etc before he puts us there. It's a fair point but I don't know that he waited so long to put up a link to his own sales site there! Alanmoss 09:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't presume to know *why* Owl wants the ABG link here. If it's to provide information, then the other external links do a better job of that. If it's to increase sales, then that's just plain inappropriate. Oxy's sites are not linked for the purpose of providing him more business. If they were, www.absintheclassics.com would be linked directly, as you want www.absinthe-suisse.com linked directly. Even Owl isn't asking to link to Alandia, just to a site that links to them. And it would be fine if it had the content to warrant it. -- Peridotmetal 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone opposing the absinthe-suisse link is supporting the ABG link, are we? On the contrary, I'm getting increasingly unhappy about the length of time that link, which clearly does not meet the guidelines, has been sitting there "protected" by the fact that there is an open mediation case. —Celithemis 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Alanmoss 09:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has done anything with this for over a week. I've never removed the link before and I don't have feelings about it one way or the other, so I'm removing it for now; if the mediation case is decided the other way, it can be replaced. Alleged spammers do not get to have their way simply by starting a mediation request. Kafziel ^Talk 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If nothing is going to come of mediation then the site should probably be removed and added back if mediation finds a compromise. Stalled mediation should not be used as protection for a link IMO. -- Ari 00:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. I never thought it was proper to use a mediation case as a way to get a link included until the process was complete, but I let it stand to avoid an edit war, trusting that the process would be finished (or at least begin!) in some reasonable amount of time. After this experience I will certainly think twice the next time I'm tempted to suggest that an editor pursue dispute resolution. (I had envisioned an RFC, honestly.) —Celithemis 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Alanmoss 11:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen from the comments above, the problem editors who oppose the ABG link are now condeming the Mediation process itself. When in fact, Mediation was working and a compromise had been reached. The ABG made the changes that were suggested by editor "Ari x", and per the talk page, he did not have further issues. However, editor Kaziel has removed the ABG link again. This editor and a few others do not understand that it is not appropriate to remove content added by other editors. In fact, Kaziel recently removed himself from being promoted to an administrator because of an overwhelming numbers of people who opposed giving him admin control. This should be his first clue that his actions are not appropriate for the Wikipedia. Owl2hagrid 15:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. Ari's specific complaints about ABG were by no means exhaustive and he made that clear when he said he had only glanced over the site and found the glaring errors. Besides, it is not enough for only one of the editors to accept a compromise even if all of Ari's concerns had been answered.

All those corrections did is remove some of the misinformation. That doesn't make it worthy of adding to the external links. Above in the compromise section, in response to Alanmoss's suggestion I detailed, per link, why I believe the current links are appropriate (unique, in-depth, accurate content) and why I think absinthe.se and ABG are not (ABG does not have unique or in-depth content, although it is much more accurate now). The other editors seem to agree about ABG. So instead of warring about it, please respond to these _specific_ issues. This won't be resolved without specific discussion.

As for "condemning the Mediation" it appears to me that the editors are actually condemning the lack of mediation. The fact that it doesn't seem to be taking place. That's an _entirely_ different thing than condemning the mediation. Everyone played ball until realising there's no ballgame. I myself even replaced the ABG link once when it was removed during mediation even though I am wholly opposed to it being there. -- Peridotmetal 16:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I at least am not "condemning the mediation process" but suggesting the mediation cabal has stalled and the page should be returned to before the argument. I am quite unsure if the mediation process will work at all as both sides need to be willing to discuss the issue. While one side has given reasons for removing the link based on wikipedia guidelines and suggestions on how to fix this the other seems to do little but attack the editors. I did not say I didn't have any further issues, as seen here, "I think it needs more corrections than just FAQ and history, it would be a start." I did give factual corrections which was one of the reasons given for not including ABG in the link, you will notice on the absinthe talk page I give others. Later I will repeat those on this page as well, if it will make a difference. -- Ari 16:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am indeed not condemning the outcome of mediation but rather saying that no actual mediation has taken place here.

Owl2hagrid, your claim that "it is not appropriate to remove content added by other editors" is completely and utterly unsupported by any Wikipedia policy, and indeed flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. You are simply wasting everybody's time by framing your argument in these terms. —Celithemis 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I would like to say that it will be difficult to get a fair and unbiased resolution from the regular-active editors of the Absinthe page due to their relationship with the commercial vendors who are adimate about keep the Absinthe Buyers Guide out of the External links page.

The current editors have violated the Avoidance rule for Resolving Disputes "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute", and they repeatedly reverted the contribution (over 10 times). Based on the Guidelines, they should have Disengaged and if a compromise could not be made, they should have used this avenue for Mediation. Instead of handling this through proper channels, they ganged up on the editors, made personal attacks and simply controlled the page through attrition.

If and when these editors are confronted, they will make all sorts of claims. This should be the first alarm that they have a very personal bias to the Absinthe Buyers Guide, this is very evident in the Absinthe Talk page. In fact, the very claims that they make against the Absinthe Buyers Guide, are true for the websites that they list and protect in the External links section, they are:

The Virtual Absinthe Museum La Fée Verte The Wormwood Society Absinthe.se Thujone.info

All of these websites, even though they are nicely done, sell absinthe products or promote a specific set of websites that sells absinthe products. All of the owners of these websites work together to promote specific products. Many of the editors of the absinthe page have close relationship with these websites and owners, and may even be working for them. This is typical of how this group operates. And most important, the owners of these websites and their followers have always work to discredit the Absinthe Buyers Guide.

In closing for now, I would like to say that the editors have done a nice job on the Absinthe page, however, it does not give them the rights to control and manipulate it to meet their personal and financial objectives.

Finally, the La Fee Verte and Wormwood Society offer public forums for absinthe and related discussions. Many of the editors of the Absinthe page are very active in these forums. It is in these forum where they recruit other editors to help control the Absinthe page who will be sympathetic to their objective. These is no way anyone can compete with this and this is yet another reason why the Absinthe Buyers Guide and many other absinthe sites from around the world cannot be listed on the Absinthe page. They have tried and they have been banned due to biased censorship.

Thank you.

Hey, how come I'm listed here? I've hardly had anything to do with this at all. As far as I can tell, the only communication I've had with Owl2hagrid was back in March (when I told him that if the other links were found to be spam they could be removed as well). I've only edited Absinthe three times in the past couple of weeks, and all of them were pretty blatant vandalism as far as I can see. I don't think I've removed the ABG link at all. I'm not biased; I don't even like absinthe. What am I missing here? Kafziel ^Talk 04:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that you did reply to the IPs in absinthe talk. If I had to guess I would say Owl2hagrid and at least one of the IPs are the same person. -- Ari 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

General note, on My talk Owl asked for errors I had seen and as far as I can tell a quick correction has been made to ABG, so "inaccurate information" can be crossed off my list of issues. (Which I know I haven't directly posted yet). -- Ari 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason it has been deleted has been hashed out multiple times across multiple pages. To provide an example, there have been a number of new absinthe products released recently. In the "new products" section the buyer guide provides no mention of any recent absinthe not carried by Alandia. The most recent release is Alandia's "Gold68." The information given is a direct copy from its site, the image is a direct copy from its site. There is no mention that with a lack of anise this is a "bohemian style" product and thus not really absinthe, nor any other comments about it. The next product on the list is also an Alandia only product. As repeated elsewhere the absinthe buyers guide appears to serve no other function than to act as advertisement primarily for alandia and does not meet guidelines. Whether or not other sites do or claims against editors does not matter here, and should not be used in place of evidence supporting the site. -- Ari 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Owl2hagrid are you willing to update your site until it fits better with guidelines (which is more than just a quick fix)? If so then this could all be fixed by it being removed until the site is updated and then looked at freshly. -- Ari 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)