Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence

The Relevance of Mattisse's Sockpuppets

I'm placing this comment here because I'm not sure it really belongs on the evidence page. Ekajati provided a long list of sockpuppetry examples. Despite many of these user accounts being labeled on their user pages as being sockpuppets confirmed by Checkuser and a category being created of sockpuppets of Mattisse, my research finds that only one sockpuppet account was definitively identified on the request for checkuser on Mattisse: User:Xampt. Strangely, this user is not marked as a sockpuppet. Perhaps I've missed something. These are the places I've looked:

• I looked up Mattisse's case here: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mattisse
• Then Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse, Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse 2nd, and Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse 3rd (3rd was about the possibility of User:Timmy12 being a sock of Mattisse.)
• A slightly earlier inquiry is Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin and the talk page Wikipedia talk: Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin

Another point I find confusing is Ekajati's laying out evidence about Mattisse's alleged sockpuppet activities without explaining how this is pertinent to this arbitration. Again, perhaps I'm being a bit thick or slow on the uptake. (I use the phrase "alleged" only because I haven't seen the confirmation on the investigation pages listed above.)

I think it is also worth quoting from the outside statement of the Request for Comment/Mattise, drafted by Salix alba and which 14 people generally agreed with (3 people certified and/or endorsed the findings of the main RfC statement: Rosencomet, 999, and Geo):

I beleive it is an RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary.

1. The adding of citation needed were good faith edits, attempting to improve the quality of the article.
2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies.
3. An attempt has just been started to resolve this dispute via the Mediation Cabel Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival, rather than attempt mediation the filers of this case have sought to base a case solely on the actions of one user.
4. User:Mattisse and User:Timmy12 have been subject to a number of visious personal attacks relating to these tags. [1] [2]
5. User Timmy12 has complained of harrassement. [3]
6. The sockpuppet situation is old news. All puppets have ceased operating. It have been confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse that Timmy12, MaxReg are not a sockpuppet of mattise. Further the only confirmed sockpuppet User:Xampt was an account used for only three days for a total of 16 edits, the account was used to avoid the harrassesment, and did not break and wikipedia policies and guidelines. Administrators decided that no action was necessary.[4]
7. By perpetuating the sockpuppet allegations User:Hanuman Das and User:999 are failing to assume good faith. They are failing to attempt to seek comnsensus on the underlying content issue, instead relying on personal attacks.
8. In most other cases where mattise has added fact tags users have engaged in civil dialogue, resulting in improvements to the article in question.

There has been a running theme in the ACE/Starwood et al discussion of those who support the Starwood links bringing up the issue of Mattisse's alleged sockpuppets at regular intervals. The assumption on the part of those continually bringing up Matisse seems to be that if one of the numerous people who contested the links may have used sockpuppets, then all the other excesses or violations of policy in the case should be excused. I find this an unconvincing presentation, and an attempt at diversion from the main issues which are: 1. The excessive linking, 2. The conflict of interest, 3. The acting in defiance of WP policies and community consensus, and 4. The harassment and attempted intimidation of editors who questioned or removed the Starwood links. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Updated information on this: Apparently a series of socks were discovered accidentally by an admin with Checkuser powers investigating a different matter and the list posted on Mattisse's talk page with a warning. Because this was outside of the Checkuser protocol and system, nothing shows up in those normal channels. I'm unfamiliar with this kind of circumstance and perhaps it happens regularly but because of the oddness of it, I'd really like a bit more of an explanation from the admin and bureaucrat User:Rdsmith4. It's the lack of documentation that bothers me more than any distrust of Rdsmith4; I don't know him. I still feel this is generally a side matter, of little consequence to the central issues. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I could not disagree more with Pigman's evaluation of this issue, which I find to be extremely one-sided, assumes motivations on the parts of others, and trivializes some of the very actions that started this whole mess.

1. To say that the Rfc was merely to harass an "adversary", and that the citations were merely to "improve the article(s)", flies in the face of logic. The same person who required these citations called them linkspam once they were in place, and did both under assumed names. The same person CREATED articles that were falsely linked to the Starwood article, and inserted false information, then contacted editors INCLUDING PIGMAN and blamed them on "the Starwood folks". At one point links to a host of simple words were added, and in another case material was copied and made into a non-factual article about someone else. To "assume good faith" in such a situation is simply not possible. Matisse was trying to PROMOTE a battle, not improve an article.

2. Pigman's repeated statements that "Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival." is a matter of opinion. Such opinions can be discussed on a case-by-case basis, and have been, and many have been changed accordingly. But several knowledgible editors have strongly disagreed with his evaluation. If you think the simple mention of the appearance, which it has already been agreed can be properly cited by a reference to the program booklet, is no more important than other appearances, you are welcome to add those others or create a list of public appearances as you can see on the Oberon Zell-Ravenheart and Patricia Monaghan articles (and I may do some of that myself as time goes on).

3. The guidelines on the Conflict of Interest page (which Pigman insists on calling WP:VAIN), are just that: guidelines. The same page says "If you do write an article on a little-known subject, or on one in which you are involved in some way, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, published sources." The material in question is simply factual: a list of past speakers and presenters at an event. There is no discussion of how great they are or any kind of value judgement, just a list. Some editors have said that it would take an addition of a 3rd-party source to establish notability, others have said the notability of the event makes the notability of the appearance self-evident (at least in some cases). As Che and Samir have both said, a case-by-case discussion is in order. And I state again: I am paid nothing for any work I do on behalf of ACE, Starwood or WinterStar; I am merely a volunteer, regardless of the fact that I have a title to my volunteer position. (I believe the same may be said of Pigman and Kathryn concerning Celtic Reconstructionism and organizations that they edit articles related to.)

4. The importance of the Matisse issue is quite obvious, since the number of external links, the loss of civility in the discussion, the number of articles, the defensiveness and therefore the incidence of reverting, and the supposed "harassment" (which, in my opinion, was a case of some editors trying to give a multiple offender a taste of her own medicine), and many other factors were directly influenced by her actions. Had they not occured, things might have gone differently and the article(s) might have been improved in a constructive way. As it stood, Matisse caused an enormous amount of unecessary work and anxiety (rather than "resulting in improvements to the article" as Pigman has said), and I believe contributed to the withdrawal of two, perhaps three, editors, to the detriment of Wikipedia.

5. The claim that the issue has been reduced to nothing but the Matisse issue is also wrong, IMO. The other issues like the belief on the part of some that there are too many links (still without any guideline as to what number is appropriate, and perhaps none is necessary), the external links, the appropriateness of using the program on the ACE website to validate the fact of an appearance (if not the notability), and the call for 3rd-party citations have ALL been addressed little by little. The Jeff Rosenbaum article has been taken down, IMO largely because of issues of autobiographic nature, and I shall not try to revive it (which doesn't mean someone else might not create one if they think the subject passes notability standards). I have also ceased any but quite minor edits to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles, have been responsive to requests for additional information on edits made by others ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE, and have deleted several names from the lists on the Starwood article while also deleting mention of a Starwood appearance from several other articles. I have also supplied 3rd-party citations to replace those to the ACE website whenever possible; dozens of them. My interest throughout has been to create and/or improve complete articles with pertinent information (such as my work on bibliographies and discographies on various articles, which could not possibly benefit me), whether Pigman chooses to believe this or not, and I hope to continue to do so. Rosencomet 18:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RfAr: Mattisse?

It seems to me that an awful lot of the evidence presented here goes to issues that have already been addressed, namely the Mattisse-account question. Quite honestly, I haven't seen any inappropriate behavior by Mattisse since my involvement in this article began, and this RfAr was filed some time after that. It would seem to me that this avenue is not likely to be terribly productive. - Che Nuevara 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Che. The only reason I've gone into some detail (and only on the talk page, not the main evidence page) is because it is the only issue substantially addressed by Ekajati and Rosencomet. As I said in both of my posts above, I believe the sockpuppet issue is a strawman argument, long settled and not related to the core issues I've outlined on the evidence page. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, Che. However, since Pigman brought it back up, I didn't feel it should go unchallenged. Also, in his above posting, he says that "The sockpuppet situation is old news. All puppets have ceased operating." (and he calls it "long settled", though I don't see how it has even been fully addressed) and you say "I haven't seen any inappropriate behavior by Mattisse since my involvement in this article began (December 6th), and this RfAr was filed some time after that." In that case, the behavior this whole arbitration is about is even older news, and my behavior since your involvement (or even since Matisse and Timmy12 stopped reverting everything and gave me a chance) has been to CORRECT things people have complained about, reducing the number of links to and from the Starwood page and the length of the "featured speakers" and "featured entertainers" lists, and providing 3rd-party citations. I've done little else to it since early November. My attempts to help matters have been entirely ignored by Pigman (though not by everyone involved), nor has he contributed a single edit to the article. In fact, except for Salix Alba, no one else on the other side of this issue has done anything but attack other people's work until this past week. Had folks been constructive instead of destructive early on (like Hanuman Das, 999, and Ekajati have been), and less tolerant (and even cooperative) concerning Matisse's behavior, this whole thing would not have been happening.Rosencomet 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deliberately avoided these articles recently because of this arbitration as well as harassment. I'm loathe to edit them until I receive some guidance from ArbCom. I might also gently remind you that the result of the mediation clearly stated you should not be editing these articles at all. I don't view refraining from editing this group of articles as a restriction on my Wikipedia activities. You, apparently, do, since you have still not expanded your Wikipedia edits beyond this group of articles and persist in editing them despite community consensus. I could edit the articles but I would undoubtedly come in conflict with you, 999, and Ekajati about content, orientation, and priorities. This has been an unproductive activity in the past so I'm not engaging in it for the moment. As for Hanuman Das, 999, and Ekajati's behaviour, not all of it has been "constructive" as I've seen and noted in my evidence statement. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I question your use of the phrase "this group of articles". Of course I have "expanded my Wikipedia edits beyond this group of articles": I've created over 35 others, and improved many more in ways that couldn't possibly benefit me. I also point out that Che and BostonMa both agree that edits I've made to REDUCE the number of links and to provide 3rd-party citations are welcome, regardless of your opinion, and that there WAS no such "result of the mediation" as far as I can see. Che said that the mediation was solely about the links. However, I have followed the spirit of the discussion in that mediation and worked to improve matters. I have made virtually no edits to the Starwood, WinterStar, or ACE articles, which are the only still existing articles I can see that a question of COI has be raised about, though I have offered information on the Starwood discussion page about questions concerning verifiability and clarification. Are you saying I have no right to do that? I think you simply want to drive me out of Wikipedia. Rosencomet 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If by "virtually no edits" you mean ten edits to the Starwood article, I suppose that is accurate. Also, in the RfC, it was requested, "Can we please declare a moratorium on messing with the links in question until some consensus is reached? Further revert-warring isn't going to solve anything." It is my opinion that other editors stopped working on the articles due to a combination of harassment and personal attacks from Hanuman Das, 999 and Ekajati, plus this request for a moratoriam, and not because people suddenly decided that the links and articles were ok. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)