From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-28 Editor abuse and threats 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 2 Mediators Thoughts 2.1 Self Promotion / Commercial sites 2.2 Article information 2.3 Verdict 2.4 Recomendations 2.5 In conclusion & thanks 3 Comment by Ewrobbel 4 Comment by DV8 2XL 5 Compromise offers 6 Notice 6.1 Comments by others 6.2 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-28 Editor abuse and threats

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Ewrobbel 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...Article "Walkman"

Who's involved?

...DV8 2XL

What's going on?

...DV8 2XL has banned my relevant link and threatens to remove all reference to me on Wikipedia. I am the leading author in the field of transistor radio collecting. On my web site, I have some hobby pages called my "Radio of the Month." On one of these pages, September 2005, (http://www.ericwrobbel.com/rom0509.htm) I show and discuss the Walkman. I don't sell any books about the Walkman. I'm not selling anything on the page (but there are some Google ads at the bottom). I believe this link is perfectly appropriate and an asset to Wikipedia. DV8 2XL disagrees and will not discuss the problem. I have asked him repeatedly to tell me what to change on that page to make it acceptable to him but he will not do so. He just threatens to revert anything I do and to remove all other reference to me on Wikipedia and have me blocked as punishment if I pursue what I believe to be a modest and proper link.

What would you like to change about that?

...I would like DV8 2XL to stop being abusive to me and to provide me the information I need to satisfy him. Alternately, if I am right that my link is indeed OK as is, I would like others to inform DV8 2XL that he is out of line and to leave it alone.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Sorry --DV8 2XL 01:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...

[edit] Mediator response

I took a look at this issue and i think it needs taking as soon as so I am giving it my priority :D. I think DV8 2XL should give his reason for not wishing to include this link to the website in question and then discuss the issues.

Please can we aviod and personal attacks and abusive comments and try to keep the discussion friendly. Thanks -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 21:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

This issue is not new, it was covered by the Mediation Cabal here: [1]

Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here:[2]

Discussed with the editor who is complaining on his talk page here: [3]

And in edit summaries here: [4], here: [5], and here: [6]

Several editors and several admins are of the opinion that this is linkspam. It was explained to him by e-mail during the last mediation as well by the mediator. This editors persistence in this matter, his obsteperous refusal to see his actions as violations of policy, and the constant prevarication that he has engaged in during discussions makes it very hard to maintain the assumption of good faith on his part. Thus, there is in my mind, no reason to believe that even if this link that he is determined to insert is cleansed of all reference to his sales pages at this time that it will not be redirected soon after the matter is settled.

As for the abuse and threat charges, please note that I have shown considerable patience with this editor, it was he that brought this to the admins noticeboard charging me with vandalism, I did not report him for several 3RR violations as evidenced in the history of the pages in question as I thought he was acting in good faith and was new. I have issued standard warnings about the consequences of flagrant violations of the rules, personally (as opposed to using sterile tags) and have endeavored to explain policy and my actions at every turn.

I would ask the mediator to review the history of this case in detail before offering an opinion. --DV8 2XL 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that DV8 I will read through this before comment further. EWrobbel you should have mentioned these things previously, anyway - I will think this over and come back to you both (inside the hour if I can). Thanks -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 22:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly new. I was ignorant and wrong in my earliest link attempts. I have admitted that. This link under "Walkman" is not the same issue. The previous issue about links under "Transistor Radio" and "Crystal Radio" has been resolved by listing my books on the subjects under "Reading" with no links at all. DV8 2XL threatens to remove even these if I do not conform to his opinions in this new case. I would welcome a review of the previous case. It will be seen there that not everyone agrees with DV8 2XL. The bottom line here is: I don't know if DV8 2XL has even seen the link in question. I think he should do so, and give his reasons for not allowing it. DV8 2XL's reference to alleged "constant prevarication" on my part is an example of the hurtful personal attacks and abuse I seek to end with this mediation.--Ewrobbel 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have taken a look through all the previous issues and think that though they have relevance here it is important we focus on the sole issue - in this case whether that link should be included in the article. As I see it DV8 is disputing the posting of a link for self promotion - I mean there can be no quibble over the fact that links to commercial sites are allowed (there are many links to the Sony site on that article). Even the argument that the page whilst non-commercial has links to a page to but books doesn't really stand as the Sony site does the same. The important issue is whether the link has usefulness to the article, the Sony site and it's commercial bent is tolerated for the obvious reason the "Walkman" is a Sony beast and so is a big and important resource.

So we need to establish whether the link in question is valid for inclusion:

• Is it a reference or source for the article
• Does it add information not covered or only briefly covered in the article
• Does the page provide meaningful and 'different' content

By that I mean in relation to what you could find from google search

There might be a few other points I have missed or forgotten so I will think some more and maybe add them.

Id like to know your opinion on those points and whether you agree / disagree. Also whether you feel that the link fulfills them - and why. I will not be forming my own opinion yet but basing it on what you say (to maintain impartiality for the moment) - just in case you were worried :P -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 23:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that two wrongs don't make a right in the case of commercial links, and that to the best of our knowledge the Sony links were not placed by Sony or their agents the link in question is:

• It is not a source or reference
• It does not cover anything new or expand on the topic
• The content is not really different to the illustrations that appear in the article
• The sole purpose of this page is to drive traffic to the areas of the site devoted to the sale of the editors own books

Thus the link fails on all points

--DV8 2XL 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tmorton166, thanks for taking this on. Are you asking DV8, or me, or both of us for opinion on those points?--Ewrobbel 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to be presumtuous, but let me offer my opinion of the link's value. It shows the Pressman, forerunner to the Walkman, as well as the rare earliest Walkman version, and the more common "first" Walkman all side by side. This kind of side-by-side comparison is of significant interest to collectors and historians using Wikipedia as a resource. The article shows only a single version of the common "first" Walkman and while it references the Pressman, it does not show it. The link contains additional text information that is not in the article--information that, like the photograph, amplifies with details of interest to collectors and historians.--Ewrobbel 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case you should do what I suggested on your talk page: release the image to the public domain and post it to the article, as you do own the copyright. Then edit into the text of the article any extra information that you feel is missing. Since your only interest is to supply valuable information to the readers of Wikipedia and not drive traffic from here to the website where you sell your books this will fulfill your noble objective and remove the suspicion that you are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising. --DV8 2XL 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks for all the comments and opinions, I have given my response below and provided areas below that for posting remarks. Please don't post anymore stuff here, cheers -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 02:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediators Thoughts

I have given this alot of thought and read all of the related articles / discussion and think I am ready to give a third party opinion. Please read it all through and then indicate at the bottom if you agree, or not - and if not the reasons why. Thanks.

Addition: Please note that I was writing these suggestions as DV8 added his last comment - This comment did not influence my opinion in anyway and all that I have written was as it was before I saw that comment. I thought I'd add that seeing as it sorty of suggested wht I ave at the end of my piece :D  Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 02:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self Promotion / Commercial sites

DV8 you said about the Sony site not being self-promotion which is fair enough but the point about limited inclusion of commercial sites still stands, if the content is relevant to the article and substantiates it without the sole purpose being to promote the site then that is fine. In the case of the link in question the issue is muddied by the fact that Ewrobbel owns the site in question. Although I think, Ewrobbel, your claim that you are not trying to promote your site (or sales) is mostly genuine - although you must have had that in mind when adding the link. The page itself is reasonably non-commercial however the inclusion of the following lines:

Watch for a new radio October 1, 2005, and the first of every month!

See transistor radios and crystal radios.

is misleading as it doesnt explain that the link goes to the homepage full of purchasing options - rather that it leads to more information about radios.

However, the inclusion of google ad's isn't a problem, alot of linked sites on wikipedia have google ad's all over as it is a mark of a hobby site and fair game for the information they provide)

[edit] Article information

Ewrobbel, you have a valid point in that your page does contain some limited information and the picture of the Pressman that is not in the Wiki article, and also with your point that it should be included somewhere (ie you added a link to it).

[edit] Verdict

So the verdict itself? Well I think that the linked page as it stands is marginal for inclusion. It has only limited extra information to substantiate the article, also the link on the page (mentioned previously) is a bit too much like advertising. It would not be so much of a problem if soemone else added the link but as it is your own page it makes a difference. Finally I feel the notability (ie low google ranking and low hits - read popularity) is too low for it to be regarded as a fair source.

[edit] Recomendations

I still think Ewrobbel has a point about the Pressman picture and other info and I think the best cause of action (rather than him modifying his page) is for him to incorporate it all into the article. This way there can be no disagreement over suitability. If this is done then I see no reason for I see no reason for the link not to be included as a source, by that I mean it should not be added under "other links" but rather like this ''information from the page incluided in the article[http://www.ericwrobbel.com/rom0509.htm]'' that way the author is credited for source but the link is not prominent enough for it to be self-promotion.

[edit] In conclusion & thanks

These are only suggestions but I hope that you are happy to follow them, I have a feeling though that this is a rare case where both of you will be happy with this suggested outcome - I hope so anyway. Thanks for replying well and with plenty of pertinent info and thanks for staying nice. You'd be amazed how easily some users turn this into a mass brawl!

I have added to areas below for each of you to comment in on these thoughts, please indicate wether you agree or not with what I have said.-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 02:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Ewrobbel

At the risk of belittling my own work, I must say that the picture and info in my link are not of general enough interest to belong actually IN the article. The info is valuable only to a specialized audience of collectors and historians and thus its proper place is in an ancillary link where it doesn't intrude, and not the article itself.

I would appreciate some admonition directed toward DV8 for the continued insulting tone directed toward me. He addresses me, rudely, by my last name only, and continues to threat. I don't know what an Rfc is but it sounds like another threat. And of course there are his earlier reference to alleged "constant prevarication" on my part and other hurtful personal attacks and abuse.

Kindly consider: The challenges of self-publishing are many. Not the least of which is the fact that NO one does anything for you. You have to do it all yourself. So I am by these circumstances placed in the awkward and immodest position of having to post my own links. Is this wrong? Possibly, but to deny such links is to discriminate against the self-published in favor of the "big boys" who have the means and connections to get such things accomplished for them by others.

You are right that the link on the page "See transistor radios and crystal radios" could be construed as misleading as it doesn't explain that the link goes to the homepage where books are offered. It would be downright dishonest if it said "See more Walkmans"--because of course I have no book on Walkmans. But it doesn't make that claim. People interested in the Walkman that come to the page from Wikipedia are not likely to click a "See transistor radios and crystal radios" link as it is off-topic. I'm not trying to entice anyone to look at something not of interest to them. If anyone is actually interested in following a link "See transistor radios and crystal radios" anyway, they are taken to the home page and shown books for sale, each of which links to more pictures on the sample pages. So they are seeing lots of images in the process of looking at the books. And none of this is seen at all by persons only interested in the Walkman because such persons would not click on an off-topic link any more than they would click on an off-topic Google ad.

You mention the page has a low Google ranking. I thought it was a 6, which I understood is pretty good. But maybe that is just the main page. The Walkman page is probably not likely to be very popular--it is a very specialized subject as I've mentioned.

I don't really understand how this works: " information from the page included in the article[7]." But, as I've said I don't think the picture and info in my link really belong IN the Wikipedia article itself.

So, what do you think? Can you support a link to the page under the circumstances? I would be happy to follow your guidance for link verbiage.

Again, many thanks for your work on this.--Ewrobbel 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I will say that you are not link spamming etc. I do not think the link is suitable for inclusion in the article at this time - so cannot support it. I will however support the inclusion of your picture in article if you so wish to (including reference). If you need any help including it then pleaselet me know. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 13:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by DV8 2XL

I will not accept any solution that leaves a link to his site, because that is all he wants to accomplish here. My final offer in this matter is below. I thank the mediator for his efforts, However this was not the route to settle a policy dispute, and that's what this is. This cannot be settled here as any agreement that I make to overlook the rules is not binding on any other editor.--DV8 2XL 02:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok however I don't think this can be counted as spam, he has only added it to the Walkman page. Spam would be if he added this link to loads of other wiki pages (I notice that it is not added to the crystal or transistor radio pages). You need not overlook the rules. If he adds his image to the article he is entitled and required to add his page url as sourcing information. Similarly if he adds info form that page top the article he is entitled to put the URL in a separate section as sourcing. However I know you would not endorse the latter action and I think that the compromise of adding the link next the the info it is sourcing would ensure non-advertising. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewrobbels comment above is nothing less than a tacit admission that his actions are nothing other than a bald attempt to uses Wikipedia as a platform for free advertising, which is what I have contended all along. The ad hominem argument that not permitting him to do so supports the 'big guy' over the 'little guy' is particularly galling. I am not going to participate in a process that will allow him to do this and avoid censure from the rest of the editing community. --DV8 2XL 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Here is the compromise I will accept. Wrobbel and I will leave things as they were after the last round. He keeps mention of his books in the reading section, (despite the fact he put them there himself) and places no links to his website hyperlinked or not, and doesn't bring this issue up again. In return I will not launch an RfC on this matter and invite the dozen or so editors of the electronic pages who, like me, spend an inordinate amount of time scraping the linkspam, that seems to collect like barnacles. off those topics. I'm sure everyone can imagine the warm welcome he will receive there. This is my one and only offer to you Wrobbel in recognition of the fact that indeed you are an expert in these subjects and thus your books do deserve inclusion in the reading lists. However the next time you probe to see if I am still paying attention I will go straight to RfC. --DV8 2XL 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not offer threats as a compromise, it is not needed and promotes bad feeling. Link Spam is an evil we al hate but breaching WP:CIVIL is also not needed.

Please understand this is a warning not a threat. That I have not taken a hard line and treated this as linkspam vandalism from the beginning and simply reported it and let due process take its course here is an indication of how much patience I have shown. In return I have been treated to a constant stream of mendacity and dissemination and now I have reached my limit. This is as far as I intend to go. --DV8 2XL 08:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A threat is a threat, DV8. You have made many of them and seem to throw them around without realizing it. To call threats an expression of "patience," as you do, is Orwellian--you are calling war "peace." Your "patience" and your name-calling is hurtful, inappropriate, against Wikipedia policy, and you only get away with it because people fear confronting you about it. I think what galls DV8 the most, and what has led to his serious anger with me is that I don't cower in fear of him.

DV8's "compromise" is the very offer he came in with: I am to do exactly as he says or I will be punished. No link, hyperlinked or not. I am to give up copyright on my work while DV8 gives nothing but the foregoing of further punishment. That is the sort of offer that is recognized by law enforcement the world over by another name: extortion.

I have offered to compromise on link text, and even to change my page if necessary. No such offers have been accepted. The only "compromise" offered is for me to give up my copyright--my ownership of my photo. This is extreme and is no compromise at all. It is really an appalling thing to ask a person to do. Ask any copyright holder if that suggestion is fair. Of course I can't give up my copyright, and if the mediator here can't support a link to the page on any terms, then I suppose this Wikipedia article will just have to be the poorer for it and that's that.

If I understand your decision, Tmorton166, you are agreeing straight down the line with DV8 on all issues with the exception that you don't believe I am link-spamming. Thank you for that. But I understand you to say that the link in question would be linkspam, if I were to add it to the Wikipedia, but it would not be linkspam if someone else were to add it, is that correct? I don't want to play games and have some friend put it in there, but of course it is possible that any websurfer at any time could put a link to that page in Wikipedia because they found it to be a worthy addition to the article. That is certainly possible. I'd like you to clarify your position on such a link so that both DV8 2XL and I understand your decision, specifically stating whether DV8 2XL would be right or wrong in deleting such a link should it occur.

It's plain to me, and may well be plain to others who would read this exchange, that the intimidation and bullying tactics that have been employed on me throughout this issue by DV8 2XL have been employed on you as mediator as well in the dictation of terms and the general tenor of DV8's comments to you. I encourage you, and all who dare to cross paths with DV8 to stand up to this bully and not let him drive away with intimidation the sorts of sensitive, knowledgable contributors, editors, and mediators Wikipedia needs.

I ask you to send this matter on for review, to see if it appears to the reviewer that you may have been intimidated by DV8 2XL in the decision you reached. It is obviously possible given the aggression and bullying to which you have been subjected.

I thank you again for hearing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

You really have no clue do you Eric? You haven't made an edit of substance since you joined that didn't relate to this issue, and having failed to get what you want you now are looking for a loophole. Your only interest in this Project is in using it for free advertising.

Let me make this clear - I see a link to your site it is going to be reverted and the poster will be warned and if they persist they will be reported for linkspamming. --DV8 2XL 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Again DV8 2XL dictates the results of this mediation. Whatever the mediator decides, DV8 will do as he wants regardless. Won't anyone else please step in and help stop this bully?

To use a colorful expression from my country, I have no choice now but to "take my basketball (my photo and my link) and go home."

What then is the net result?:

I've still got my basketball. And DV8 2XL has his victory.

The only losers here are the Wikipedia users who don't get to play with the basketball--even though I wish to loan it to them--because DV8 2XL insists I GIVE it to them outright or nothing.--Ewrobbel 15:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As you said Ewrobbel if another user placed that link in the article it would be because they found it useful and informative. In that case I think the issue of commercial interests wouldn't come up.

I am not agreeing completely with what DV8 has said however, I think the link has value but that wikipedia is not a directory of links on a topic. In my view only a link with lots of pertinent (and possibly personal opinion / comment) information that may or may not be covered in the article. Wikipedai is an encyclopedia so as much information as possible should be included in the actual articles - to be honest only in the case where (for leagal or other reasons) the info can't be transposed into the article should the link exist, and even then only if the info is important enough.

In this case whilst I think the info is useful to the article I think it is not important enough to warrant a link if it cant be transposed, it is of interest only tbh.

I also am not agreeing to do what DV8 wants because I am willing to support the inclusion of the info & picture into the article and then the link as sourcing. To be perfectly honest I think that is about the only compromise possible - if you do not wish to accept that (either of you) then sadly it doesn't look like this is going to be resolved quickly.

Please remeber mediation is not about siding with either of the parties but finding a middle ground one that satisfies both sides and wikipedia policy. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 16:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tmorton166 for your comment. I have sought a middle ground all along with a willingness to change link text, and even the page. But asking me to give up my copyright is not a middle ground. DV8 2XL has not budged one bit toward any middle ground. And he says that regardless of your view of a link to my page originated by someone other than me, with no commercial interest, he would delete it and "warn" the poster not to submit it again. DV8 2XL has been contemptuous of this process and it is he who ought to be warned about civility and the employment of high-handed tactics.--Ewrobbel 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen one shred of evidence that this individual cares about Wikipedia beyond using it to advertise his business. "(giving) it to them outright" is precisely what we do here - it is a fundamental tenet of this project. The moment that we tolerate the notion that content can be exchanged for commercial gain is the beginning of the slide into a tragedy of the commons and the end of this encyclopedia as a unique resource. I will not be a willing party to that process. --DV8 2XL 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I hear what you are saying, just to note there is no need to give up the copyright of your image. You can still retain the copyright of the image and also add your link in the description of the image. Regardless the choice is up to you. I think this is about as far as this mediation is going to get and I worry that it might now descend into abuse (DV8's initial comments in this section are a bad start). I wouls like to say that I am not in a position to level accusations of lack of civility (except any lack on this page) as this is not the aim of the mediation cabal. If either of you wish to make a complaint against bad user civility then it needs to go before the arbitration comitee. I will levae this open for comments for a few days but unless a new compromise surfaces or either of you choose to accept the current compromise I will close this mediation. Thanks -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

In light of the fact that Ewrobbel has chosen to bring this matter before ArbCom and has named the mediator along with himself as wronged parties, no further useful work can be done here. I ask that this case be formally closed at the mediators earliest opportunity to avoid confusion.

I wish to thank tmorton166 for his efforts and his even-handed approach. The failure of this mediation rests entirely on the shoulders of the protagonists. --DV8 2XL 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments guys It's a shame we didnt come to a conclusion. I am, closing this case now. Cheers, -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion