Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-24 ALLtheTrue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2006-12-24 ALLtheTrue
Article	Kelle Marie, Justine Joli, Kyla Cole, Aria Giovanni,Carli Banks. Sandra Shine
Status	Closed
Requestor	Tutmosis
Parties	AlltheTrue, Valrith, Tabercil, Tutmosis, Joe Beaudoin Jr.
Mediator(s)	Mechcozmo
Comment	Done

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-12-24 ALLtheTrue 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.4.1 Start Mediation

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-24 ALLtheTrue

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: - Tutmosis 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Kelle Marie, Justine Joli, Kyla Cole, Aria Giovanni, Carli Banks

Who's involved?

AlltheTrue, Valrith, Tabercil, Tutmosis, Joe Beaudoin Jr.

What's going on?

AlltheTrue keeps inserting an external link to dreamingwith.com to Kelle Marie, Justine Joli, Kyla Cole, Aria Giovanni, Carli Banks despite being reverted several times by Valrith, Tabercil and once by myself. Discussion took place with the user at Talk:Kelle Marie and earlier in the year at Talk:Sandra Shine. The user ignores our concerns regarding the site not meeting WP:EL. Tabercil seeked help regarding this issue at the village pump and myself at WP:AN.

What would you like to change about that?

For AlltheTrue to stop inserting the site as an external link.

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

public is fine

[edit] Mediator response

ALLtheTrue is violating Wikipedia guidelines (namely, conflict of interest and original research) by linking to his own film database website. --Mechcozmo 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

The Sandra Shine Filmography is sourced and really reliable !! Justine Joli is great filmography and give excellent another point of view, the way of external link IS for that ! For Kyla Cole, who can give more information about her ?? The movies activity of Kyla Cole is not a priority for her, you never find people can make another filmography ! For the rest, it's just another point of view with more update, like external link rule for that !! What difference between DW and IMDB (without say more reputable, the reputation of website not enter in rules for give a link (if someone have reputation, it's not for that he say always the true) ! My question is: Wikipedia is more reputable cause you have only links from big websites (without any verification if sourced and reliable and only good cause is reputable) or when all people can give new point of view (when this point of view give more information) !

If I'm lambda user see Justine Joli filmography link purpose by wikipedia, I go in IMDB, I see "Busty Dildo Lovers", I buy it cause of course I think wikipedia is serious and reliable Encyclopedia and by this way IMDB filmography is correct !! I see this dvd in my home and I discover not Justine !! You think really this user is happy ?? He can think IMDB make mistake and Wikpedia give link without verify !! In this story the reputable of website don't enter in point of view of this user ! I speak about Justine Joli, but you have same situation for many filmography from IMDB and Co. ! The database not equal blind confidence !ALLtheTrue 06:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• All this is irrelevant. We already link to three databases, IMDB, IADB and AFDB - the fact that one or more of them may not be reliable is not a reason for adding another which may be equally inaccurate (and has a lower profile). You could always submit a correction to IMDB. Wikipedia is not a link farm and we do not exist to promote every online porn database under the sun. Or indeed any of them. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• The link breaks WP:EL -- more specifically, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as ALLtheTrue maintains the website. On that basis solely, I (clearly) see it as attempting to promote his website through Wikipedia, regardless of the content it contains or does not contain. If that is not enough, the site clearly meets the many criteria for "Links normally to be avoided" (the emphasis is mine), namely #2, #5, #11 and #13, and thus should not be included. As Guy clearly said, "Wikipedia is not a link farm". The straw man argument employed by ALLtheTrue is equally telling in his motivations as well, in that he wants us to link to a fan site with advertising for his own benefit, simply because he claims that his is the only reliable resource on the web. Regardless of the strawman (or red herring) argument, the link clearly and painfully fails WP:EL, so much so that I personally and intellectually fail to recognize why we are even needing to employ any form of mediation on this issue. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• The only point I wish to make at this point is what WP:EL points out: "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This of course contrasts to the requirement for references/sources, which pretty much mandates overkill on external links, but I digress. If dreamingwith.com was being added as a reference for the articles, I would cheerfully keep it. But what it is being added as is a filmography, and the existing links for filmographies for the adult stars (IMDB, IAFD, AFDB plus the newly added eurobabeindex) seem to be reasonably comprehensive. So the filmographies may be 95% accurate as opposed to 100% at IAFD... is that cause to add dreamingwith? I don't think so, and as Guy points out, the existing filmography databases do have procedures in place for corrections to be submitted to them. Tabercil 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have nothing much to add that hasn't already been said. I generally agree with everything that Guy, Joe Beaudoin Jr. and Tabercil have said. I do still wonder how Wikipedia chose the current set of filmography sites (see above) in use in the infoboxes, though. Valrith 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is this ?? You answers, you decide, you remove !! I can't answer ? Wow, good rules you have and good way of mediation !!ALLtheTrue 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the 'mediation' part hasn't started yet, the above are just view points of various users, most involed in this dispute. - Tutmosis 02:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

ALLtheTrue, see Wikipedia:Mediation for the process, which hasn't started yet. We are merely establishing our point of view -- you are equally welcome to do the same. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, why I'm already deleted ??? By this way, I can't give any confidence so that you say !! It's not my way to fight like that ! It's boring for me !! I prefer give my time to purpose my work to people interested by new point of view !! If you are closed about that, if you are happy with that, don't give a place for tiny websites, ok, stop this mediation !! But keep in your mind you, It's not just !! I take care about give an quality work (and I give lot of my time for that) ! I can't believe you give credit to website just only is big website or reputable ! My work, it's just another point of view, I give a + about filmography same is nothing perhaps if I compare to database !! I never ask for have place inside infobox, just external link because I think I give a + !! I think you have a responsability members, give a neutral things , you say wikpedia is not farm link !! Given 3 links database with exactly same title movies is already making link for nothing !!! Link don't give + by the rules is not allowed, but I forget the rules is not the same for tiny and big websites !!ALLtheTrue 03:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Again what you speak of is original research (the site you provide being better than IMDB, etc), the site does not meet WP:EL, because it is not verifiable and not a reliable source, and per above there is a conflict of interest with you inserting it. The "not being fair to small websites" argument is irrelevant, we are an encyclopedia not a doorway for unknown secondary sources to get an audience. I agree with you in the sense that linking to 3 filmography databases in the infobox is pointless. With that I'm beginning to sense that you have the wrong idea about wikipedia, users same as yourself write it (See Who writes Wikipedia) so just because something is being done doesn't make it useful. The best way to know right from wrong is read the existing policies and guidelines such as the ones we constantly wikilink. - Tutmosis 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, really I don't want loose my time, I think I can't speak with you !! You prefer big websites and you want stay behind dark reasons ! You use rules for my website, but the same rules not valid for other big websites !! The filmography inside Wikipedia control by small part of elite admin members protect the interest of big websites, leave me alone with this thing in my mind ! For reject my website you find good reasons !! I'm sure if I provide information you ask, I'm sure you find another reasons for don't present inside your website !! Keep the wikipedia for you ! Protect the website provide quantity not quality !! Oh, last thing, you speak about eurobabeindex, I know exactly what sort of work behind this website ! Where is source ??? Where is reliable ?? Show me please, I'm interested !!! I'm sorry I always forget, you find another big website and of course the rules not same for that too !ALLtheTrue 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In all my contact with you I have honestly stated what I thought of the situation and never held any backdoor intentions. I ask for your understanding in trying to resolve this as fast and painlessly as possible. Since several users already wrote quite similar comments I ask that you reconsider your stance and read the wikilinks we pointed out. - Tutmosis 20:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what can I purpose and what can you accept from me, of course I can't "You could always submit a correction to IMDB" purpose by Guy is no sense, why not close dreamingwith ?? I can try provide if you give me time (fews days, really hard but possible, in all case I can try) all links for source (in my mind I think always It's not just if I compare to IMDB, where is source ??)!! If not you remove my link ... Mhhh, I don't know why I purpose something, one of you remove already my links, if you appear correct and try to be comprehensive Tutmosis, all members not appear like you !!ALLtheTrue 21:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start Mediation

Well first off I should note that User:ALLtheTrue has stopped last time I checked. Basically he inserted a link to dreamingwith.com in the "External Links" section of several porn bio articles. ALLtheTrue claims it was for the purpose of directing the reader to the filmography of the person. Several users did not think that the website met WP:EL, also there are much more reliable websites like IMDB available, and from what I understand ALLtheTrue maintains the dreamingwith.com site so there is a Conflict of interest. Several users reverted his insertion of the site for the above reason and he kept reinserting it. Users tried to enter discussion with ALLtheTrue, and quoting Joe Beaudoin Jr. he responded with "red herring" comments.

I also suspect there is a language barrier since I'm having a hard time understand his/her responses. I think the most important part is coming across all the policies and guidelines to the user since s/he seems to ignore them as well as motivating the user to stay with wikipedia and improve it. - Tutmosis 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

True for the language problem, english is not my natural language ! But, If you think I don't understand the rules, I think you don't understand when I say the rules must be same for all or finally why making rules ?? In order if I purpose DW link cause I think I give a +, just that ! After that you speak about rules, not reliable, unsourced, unverify, all reasons not take for others !

If I follow strictly your rules ! Making 3 links about filmography where you have first IMDB and after others, the others posting enter in the rule and if don't give a + to the information, must be deleted !! After that the rules of reliable or sourced; I always answer about where is source of IMDB. You says always for this website about the reputable, but reputable not present in rules !! You says don't post minor website inside external link, but no rules about that ! You never answer simple where I can find the source of IMDB !! You must choose quality information and I think all members have responsability for making quality information for each articles and don't think always by big website without verify if this big website making good filmography or not; like Justine Joli filmography at IMDB this link must be remove cause seriously not good work !!! I think that you give links by practice and blind confidence without making any checking, by this way this website fall in not verifiable rule like DW finally !! Reputable or not, the rules are the rules and must be same for all ! I don't say IMDB make always bad things of course not, but sometimes IMDB don't make good jobs !!

About DreamingWith link, I'm really tired now for defend always like that versus people like you ! IF DW exist is for people search precise and serious information and don't find fake movies or mistake inside filmography !ALLtheTrue 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm having some issues understanding you, ALLtheTrue, but I think I understand enough to know what you're saying. How is IMDB a reputable site? I'm not sure how to list out all the factors that make a quality website...(correct rendering/HTML/CSS, alt tags, color scheme, suggested resolution, or would it be content? or a combination of everything? etc.) ...fortunately, this question can be sidestepped pretty easily for now. Dreamingwith.com includes this text on the front page: "You can see I move articles with Wikipedia subject inside members part, yeah I can't give any publicity to this website in main page of DW same if for to denounce their contempt towards small websites. Now, I know this website support only big websites and don't want purpose quality jobs and respectable work !" (emphasis added) I hope that is just an example of a mistranslation, because it is fairly damning-- you say yourself that you are giving publicity to your own website. In addition to that, dreamingwith.com include non-kid-friendly and non-work-safe pictures on the front page. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but there are other links that are of better quality and do not include such pictures. Also, you are linking to the site from the English language Wikipedia but the text on the website is poor English. Perhaps if there was a french version of the site, and you linked to it from the french Wikipedia... but I cannot speak for them. I am leaning to siding with those that want to remove the link for these reasons:

1. Inappropriate imagery
2. Text on website talks about drawing publicity
3. Quality of text on website

We can work on deciding what makes a website verifiable as well, but know that I can't agree with ALLtheTalk while these issues are present. --Mechcozmo 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To add to your list, Mechcozmo, the main issue here is really that dreamingwith.com is the creation of original research. ALLtheTrue has made it a point to repeatedly and proudly note that he researched these filmographies himself; introducing a link to his research is no better–or no more acceptable–than introducing new information into an article's body from one's original research. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You always seek reasons valid for be good aware? It's amazing finally try to explain something, but finally you work always in the same ways ! You want to stay you are neutral, you want respect line of conduct ! But really you organise all what you want !! I can't resist to answer ! First, Inappropriate imagery: Little comparing - DreamingWith Filmography and AFDB Filmography, now DreamingWith Description and AFDB description without forget screenshots here AFDB Screenshots !!After that, what do you say, if Inappropriate imagery is reason for remove website, you must remove all the links of AFDB !! Second, Text on website talks about drawing publicity - You take this text from an editorial at home page of DW ! "I move articles with Wikipedia subject inside members part, yeah I can't give any publicity to this website" I say I can't give any publicity for wikipedia ! really and you say I don't speak good english when this line is totally clear !!! You want understand what you want without further seeking that your nose ! Three, Quality of text on website - I think you hit the limp of Pandora and I can't defend myself ! So, same if I have someone for correct all the text for good quality, I'm sure you search always other reasons !! You beginning with taken something that I say about quality website, I never speak about that, I speak about quality information it's not the same ! You speak about non-kid-friendly and non-work-safe pictures on the front page, show me inside this page AFDB Homepage where I can see work safe pictures ???

For Joe, like I always say, you think really the filmography inside AFDB, IAFD, not from original research ?? You can see clearly with DW cause you see my name, you see who post the filmography etc in DW website ... I can cheat if you want, I register myself in Wikipedia with another name, I can ask to my friend for purpose links, use another name in DW website etc ... I think this rules make for another situation !! I try speak with you and I try understand you, but really nothing are changed !! Wikipedia don't have same rules for big and small websites !! If not, why big website with same breaking rules finally can stay and me I'm already deleted really before any decision !!!ALLtheTrue 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I misunderstood the text on your website. I'm glad that you were not doing the evil-villan thing there (revealing plans and all that). I'm not exactly happy with the pictures on AFDB, but hopefully the name is some indicator. (Personal note: Not happy with that link, and it is a weak excuse to use the name as a reason not to click. But that's besides the point.) AFDB is not inserting links onto pages saying, "Check out our site, we have info on this!" They may have collected information themselves, but they are not adding links here. Other people are.

Thanks to Joe for clarifying what is going on here. ALLtheTrue, if you want links from Wikipedia to your site, it cannot be done by you. This sucks, I know. It has to be added by someone who thinks the quality is there and should be included in Wikipedia's links. Everyone should be proud of the work that they do, and I'm glad that you are. Hopefully, sometime in the future someone will read your site and be an editor of Wikipedia. This person will decide if your site is of a high enough quality to link to. Until then, it is a conflict of interest as well as original research by you. Do you understand my reasoning? --Mechcozmo 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You must know the copyright laws (is not wiki darkest rules) and someone use my website or the name of my website or any links from my website without my permission can be out of law ! If someone use my link in the future (I see immediatly by referer system), I remove by myself in the instant !! I understand your rules of course, but for original research like I already say I'm not cheater, that's it !! Who can know, can be that one among you is an editor on one of the big website and wants to protect those. Is simple, filmography inside big website are no signed and can't know who participate on.ALLtheTrue 07:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to a website is not violating copyright laws. How do we know that the government hasn't implanted chips in our heads to make us do their bidding? How do we know that your computer isn't spying on you and sending that information to Mars Command? How do we know that the dodo was a real bird? How do we know? Big websites do not last long if they make up information. IMDB has been around for years, close to a decade now I believe. Sorry, but you cannot link to your own website in this fashion. You must wait and allow a third party to do so. Wikipedia cannot link to every website under the sun (or moon). I believe that the link should be removed. I'd also suggest you buy a tin foil hat for yourself (not aluminum, that allows government radio waves to get through). --Mechcozmo 17:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

About copyright laws, It's another subject !! I think long time ago, I make real mistake about think inside wikipedia some members can be open mind and want support quality information !! I think long time ago I would have to use another pseudonym for post here ! I see already new big website making this cheat and you allowed already this one to have a place in external links !! Finally wikipedia rules are making for big websites ! For clonclude, show me the sources of IMDB, show me inside AFDB where I can see work safe pictures (adult inside title is not work safe for pictures) ?? So for big websites you find always some good reasons !! I can't fight like that all the time versus elite members support big websites ! You win guys !! I'm happy for you, stop this mediation, It's enought for me !!ALLtheTrue 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)