Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:28, 23 February 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for CheckUser made by User:BostonMA

1) Motion to have ChechUser performed on the following accounts. On 5 Dec. Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) stated that he/she interprets the result of an RfC as permission to use sockpuppets. [2] Immediately thereafter, Danuman Has (talk · contribs) account is created and replies immediately on the RfC page with

"Me, too. I completely agree with Hanuman Das. That's exactly what it means." [3]

The User:Danuman Has account was blocked by User:Ars Scriptor, and User:BostonMA (i.e. myself) filed a Suspected Sockpuppet Report. User:Hanuman Das responded that it was all intended as a joke. User:Hanuman Das was subsequently indefinitely blocked by User:Redvers. I had suggested to User:Hanuman Das that he make a clear statement that he would not use sockpuppetry. Hanuman Das made such a statement [4], and I offered my opinion to User:Redvers that in light of that statement, I would support lifting the block [5]. User:Redvers then lifted the block. User:Hanuman Das has since then stated that he has retired from Wikipedia. There is concern, however that he may have retired that account, but not retired from editting. Several new accounts have appeared recently which might well be controlled by the individual who used the User:Hanuman Das account. However, it is also possible that these accounts are controlled by other users involved in the conflict which led to this case.

Accounts to have checkuser

Possible principles:

Hanuman Das (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ekajati (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Possible aternate accounts:

Frater Xyzzy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jefferson Anderson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RasputinJSvengali (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Moscatanix (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Nphase (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
71.219.141.151 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Nialofbork (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Danuman Has (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Motion made by BostonMA ^talk 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I did some checking and cannot find evidence of any connections other than Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs) being related to Jefferson Anderson (talk · contribs). It is possible that the best data has expired from the database, however. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oppose - this is simply a fishing expedition with no reasons given for suspecting sockpuppetry. I would not object to a shorter list with specific evidence presented which suggests sockpuppetry, but this request seems rather broad. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I strongly suspect some use of sockpuppets among these accounts and would like more definitive evidence one way or the other. The irony of Ekajati, whose evidence in this arbitration consists almost entirely of sockpuppet documentation, protesting this action seems rather acute to me. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my point, as it seems to have escaped you, is that the type of evidence I've provided should be required to justify using checkuser. I'm adding Mattisse to the request though, as I am beginning to suspect that RasputinJSvengali is actually her sockpuppet intended to be used to suggest that Hanuman Das has not actually retired. The edit pattern of first harassing H.D. fits her M.O. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionally Endorse, provided that the two users Mattisse and Timmy12 are added as possible principals as motioned below. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionally Endorse, with same conditions as Ekajati. -999 (Talk) 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as per Ekajati & 999 Rosencomet 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as per User:BostonMA's original motion.WeniWidiWiki 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as per User:BostonMA's original motion. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment No offense meant to BostonMa, but I just noticed that the last 5 names on this list don't seem to have made any edits on the Starwood Festival page. Is there really any reason they belong in a checkuser request on the Workshop page of the Starwood arbitration? Rosencomet 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration is not solely about the Starwood Festival article, but about all the links to the article that you placed on Wikipedia, and about the intense, ongoing harassment and attempted intimidation of users who removed or even questioned the links. User conduct is a major part of this. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, User:Kathryn NicDhàna is forever taking umbrage and is an editor who is likely to create trouble on WP for the smallest of preceived wrongs, done to her/him. I urge admins to proceed cautiously with this editor, and in my humble opinion this editor is trouble. Rain Dance Item 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. --BostonMA ^talk 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the above statement, and strike-out. My criticism was far too strong. Rain Dance Item 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you may think that this is what the arbitration is about, but I don't agree, and I'm sure there are several people involved who would also not agree. As far as the individual links to the article, many of which are now accompanied with the third-party sources which those on your side USED to say would support notability, I think most of those involved agreed with Che that they were to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I don't accept that most of the so-called "harassment and intimidation" you reference was that at all, or any closer to that than the behavior of Mattisse (the most egregious person in this conflict IMO) and the rest of you who participated in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation regarding the links. I also don't see an "intense, ONGOING harassment and attempted intimidation of users". I am in favor, as Salix Alba has said, of looking forward rather than rehashing this forever. However, if you'd prefer to react the way you just did to my comment that those 5 names never made an edit on the Starwood article, and ignore the fact that they also never "harassed or intimidated" anyone, you may continue to fan the flames. Heck, I didn't even oppose the checkuser! All I did was point something out. Rosencomet 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rosencomet's earlier question.

User:Moscatanix account was created on 13 December just prior to User:Hanuman Das announcing his retirement, and after 10 days, participates in an AfD, which coincidentally is for the Jeff Rosenbaum article.
User:Nphase account, out of the blue has a "conflict" with User:RasputinJSvengali [6] immediately after User:Hanuman Das. Also, the edit summary in User:Nphase's immediately preceding edit tends to suggest WP:Point. In the earlier edit, the account "edits for grammar". In the later edit, the account disparages making "edits for grammar".
User:71.219.141.151 was active for a total of less than 24 hours, yet interacted with User:Hanuman Das and User:Frater Xyzzy.
User:Nialofbork is a single edit account used to !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum
User:Danuman Has is an account that was known to have been created by User:Hanuman Das.

--BostonMA ^talk 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. 1. User:Moscatanix obviously became aware of me because of an interest in Christopher Moore. He asked me why I had taken down the Starwood mention on that article (which I did to satisfy you guys about links that were not notable), and I replied to him, telling him a bit about the controversy. That obviously led him to the Jeff Rosenbaum article, and he decided to weigh in. As it turns out, he's now been blocked as a sock of User:Rootology. 2. User:Nphase is interested in the same article as Hanuman Das and RasputinJSvengali, Illuminates of Thanateros, which is unrelated to Starwood. He disparages Rasputin for correcting for "grammer". Note the "e" in that word, and his comment. It's obviously not real grammar corrections he was criticizing. 3. A look at the one-day edits of User:71.219.141.151, starting with Illuminates of Thanateros, indicate he was just User:RasputinJSvengali, probably having forgotten to sign in or been timed out. Look at Rasputin's contribs and note the gap between Dec 12th and 15th in edits on the same articles, and the fact that Rasputin stuck "Illuminates of Thanateros" on the Starwood Festival article along with "Satanists" under "people who attend Starwood". 4. I don't know who User:Nialofbork is. Could be someone who knows me or about me that heard about the Jeff Rosenbaum article and signed in as an editor, but it was no one under my direction. 5. Come on - you don't really expect to get anything constructive out of a checkuser on Danuman Has, do you? It was obviously just created as a statement by Hanuman Das about the whole sockpuppet thing, and never used for another purpose. Rosencomet 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the last five names, one is an admitted sockpuppet of Hanuman Das. Others appeared as new accounts to vote "keep" in the AfD on your autobiographical Jeff Rosenbaum article. I think there are some legitimate concerns about the possible use/abuse of sockpuppets and votestacking in that, and other, AfDs (see, for example, 999's recent attempt at vote-stacking on the Plastic Paddy AfD, an article which I had started an earlier version of, and which appears to have became intensely interesting to him and Jefferson Anderson after I started to question and comment on the Starwood links). ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So anyone who voted against deleting the Jeff Rosenbaum article should be subjected to a checkuser and suspected of vote stacking? There's AGF for you. What about those who voted FOR it? You guys certainly seem to be agitated about it, even now that it's been deleted, and you've shown nothing but support for Mattise's sockpuppetry. If I was really "vote-stacking", I certainly did a poor job of it with one single-edit vote. And what does Plastic Paddy have to do with the Starwood arbitration? I say again, I have no objection to anyone who wants to waste their time with a checkuser on those 5 names; heck, maybe you'll find out if User:RasputinJSvengali is actually a sockpuppet of an anti-Starwood person. Who else would keep trying to insert "Satanists" into the article. In fact, Mattisse and a couple of you were very mad at BostonMa for deleting that. I just think you're engaging in a fishing expedition and trying to connect other issues to the Starwood arbitration. Rosencomet 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Add two users as possible principals to above Checkuser request

1) Add Mattisse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Timmy12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to the list of principals to be checked via checkuser in the previous motion. I am beginning to suspect that RasputinJSvengali is actually Mattisse's sockpuppet intended to be used to suggest that Hanuman Das has not actually retired. The edit pattern of first harassing H.D. fits her M.O. It's also possible that Timmy12 has not left but simply created a new account. It is just as likely that RasputinJSvengali is one of these two as it is that it might be Hanuman Das. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More likely, as Hanuman Das would never claim that Satanists were frequent attendees at Starwood. Also, on BostonMa's talk page, Matisse both argues against the deletion of these inputs, AND implies that the deletion of the entire Featured Speakers and Featured Entertainers sections was a "masterful stroke" to confuse the arbitrators on BEHALF of the people on the other side of this controversy from hers. (The edits in question seem to be designed to make trouble, as the very user name implies.) Rosencomet 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse -999 (Talk) 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as per Ekajati & 999 Rosencomet 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse which had Mattise and Timmy12 as unrelated. --Salix alba (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Salix alba. Flagellation is unnecessary when the horse is discorporate. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not asking for a check between Mattisse and Timmy12, I know the checkuser was negative. I am asking for a check as to whether Timmy12 might be running any of the suspected sockpuppets such as RasputinJSvengali. That has not been checked. This is why I proposed adding Timmy12 as a possible principal, not as a possible sock. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add User:LiftWaffen

A comment by Mattise [7] suggests LiftWaffen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was blocked may not actually be a sock. If were doing a checkuser might as well throw the lot in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse, but I suspect too much time has passed. However, the fact that Mattisse is confused about whether or not this is her sock is, imo, dissembling. She has done the same for other socks, claiming they must have been one of her relatives to who she complained about edit warring. This defense has been seriously damaged by my evidence that shows that one of the confirmed socks, NLOleson, was created shortly before the edit war had started. That is, the use of socks was premeditated.[8] This is the primary reason I think some administrative action should be taken against Mattisse. If she were but to publicly admit that the socks were hers, rather than blame them on her relatives, and publicly agree never to use socks again, I think the issue could be productively dropped. It is the continuing stance of what appears to me to be feigned ignorance that makes me worry that Mattisse has not taken away any "lessons learned" from this. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too old to check. Thatcher131 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cease sockpuppet acusations

1) Once above checkuser have ben carried out, involved parties to cease further accusations of sockpuppetry against other parties. These acusations fall on the wrong side of WP:AGF, are getting to be a case of WP:POINT and disruptive of the community in general. --Salix alba (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse --BostonMA ^talk 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) removing endorse per concerns raised. Would definitely consider supporting an alternately worded resolution of the problem. --BostonMA ^talk 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, oh yes, endorse. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - WeniWidiWiki 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm withdrawing my endorsement for this particular motion because I'm concerned that the wording is ambiguous and too subject to interpretation. Is there a specific deadline after which pointing to any possible sockpuppet activity is off limits, no matter how blatant? Is it in perpetuity for all parties involved? However, I do agree with Salix's rationale for something like this, namely WP:AGF, WP:POINT, and community disruption, but I'd like a clearer statement. Perhaps I'm sensitive as well because I've recently experienced what I'm fairly sure was drive-by sock or meatpuppet activity from accounts listed in the Checkuser motion above. These incidents are detailed in my evidence. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone is suggesting we throw all established wikipedia policies out the window, however, the incessant accusations and stalking which was evidenced by Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) going behind other users all over wikipedia and placing tags like This user was found to be a sock of XXXX behind every edit they ever made is the behaviour that needs to be dealt with by Arb com or at least swift admin action if it occurs again. (Especially, since no proof of sock-puppetry was forthcoming.) - WeniWidiWiki 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I first endorsed this, I was most certainly thinking of the history of months of sockpuppet accusations in this affair, I believe entirely from one group/side until the Checkuser motion above was placed. I sadly fail at WP:AGF in this instance because I fear this motion being used as a shield in the future. It's a sorry state when I feel some editors must now earn my assumption of good faith because I feel burned from past experiences with them. I know it's not a good or proper Wikipedian attitude yet it's there. *Sigh* --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Paul Pigman, although perhaps the wording of the motion could be changed? I see two problems here, 1) it's unclear whether this prohibits the identification on potential new sockpuppet. If it does, it would end up enabling sockpuppetry as a user on either side could create a new sock and other parties would be prohibited from identifying the activity. 2) it is made clear on the WP:RFCU page that RFCU is not a magic bullet; that is, it can return a false negative for a sophisticated user who manages to use two computers (home and school or library) without slipping up. RFCU is only definitive when it yields positive results. Socks can also be identified by editing patterns even if RFCU is negative. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I see no reason to try to prevent accusations of an improper behavior without either demonstrating that it is not true, or an admission of that behavior on the part of the perpetrator, and a declaration that he/she will cease. Remember, we are not just talking about using sockpuppets, but creating work with them and then posting accusations attributing that work to other editors (as in the case of "Musart"), and requesting multiple citations under one name while deriding them as linkspam under another. Furthermore, if there is evidence that the behavior continues (as may be possible re: user:RasputinJSvengali), why should those trying to stop it be constrained? The principle of Assuming Good Faith does not mean "against all evidence to the contrary". That would not be reasonable. Rosencomet 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse 999 (Talk) 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion that a statement be requested from Mattisse

Mattisse, a party to this arbitration, has not submitted a statement or evidence. I move that a clerk remind Mattisse that she is a party to this arbitration and that she should at least submit a statement, and that if she declines to present her own evidence, she should state so clearly in such statement.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed 999 (Talk) 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) struck 999 (Talk) 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, I agree with 999, Mattisse seems to delight in stirring things up, but when it comes to mediation, RfCs, or this arbitration, she is nowhere to be seen except on the pages of other parties giving them advice and information to present. I think that if she has an opinion or evidence, she should present it herself. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I have to agree here. Mattisse long ago said that since Hanuman Das had bowed out of the issue and her problems were with him and not with me, she would bow out herself. Since then, however, she has been very vocal against the Starwood article and its supporters, and along with Kathryn and Pigman really blasted BostonMa for his efforts to compromise with me and recognize my efforts to improve things. Mattisse in particular opposed BostonMa's revertion of RasputinJSvengali's unsupported claims that Satanists attended Starwood, and even tried to convince him to reverse it! (It amazes me: WeniWediWiki, Kathryn, and Pigman, all part of the WikiProject NeoPaganism, and all just FINE with an unsupported association of a major NeoPagan event with Satanism, and mad at BostonMa for doing the right thing because they perceived it as support for the other side of this issue.)

Recently Mattisse thanked me for opposing a "punishment war" in this arbitration. I would be happy to see her just make a statement that she'd bow out of the issue ENTIRELY, not just superficially, and abide by it. Otherwise, she should present her evidence and face the music about her contribution to this whole dispute from the beginning. Frankly, I'd prefer the former, and I'd like to see this whole thing move towards a peaceful conclusion rather than the constant attempts by some to fan the flames of anger. I don't think the present state of the article and those related constitutes a problem at all, and this continues to be a lot of wasted energy on what is now a non-issue. Rosencomet 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Mattisse made a statement on 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC) which was moved to its current location at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood#Statement by Mattisse. --BostonMA ^talk 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose who cares anymore? 999 (Talk) 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion by Neigel von Teighen

1) (as it seems I'm part of this now, at least indirectly) In name of the seriousness of this process, I formally request the parties to cease any discussion that doesn't pertain to the original discussion regarding WP:COI, WP:SPAM and other close-related Wikipedia policies, and the removal of the Involved Parties of all users that don't are involved with that discussions.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Neigel von Teighen 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Enjoin WeniWidiWiki, Paul Pigman, Kathryn NicDhana, and Mattisse from making unproven accusations against people they imagine to be sockpuppets

1) Based on the evidence of coordinated harassment of non-party Jefferson Anderson, I move that said users be warned for WP:CIVIL violations and enjoined from making such public accusations against any of the users listed in the Checkuser request until such request has been processed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed 999 (Talk) 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I kind of agree here. This Anderson stuff has blown out of control, and is symtomatic of the whole disagreement. As soon as anyone does anything either one side or the other cries foul and slings about the harassesment label. We all need to read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and learn to keep it cool. Not quite sure why Mattise is mentioned here, a mostly civil, though unproductive, conversation on Matisses talk page. One edit summary [9] which seems to have sparked a bad resposnse from JA. --Salix alba (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, especially since checkuser has shown no connection between Jefferson Anderson and any of the principals listed. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Jefferson Anderson has made one edit to Starwood Festival, the addition of a category. He has reverted no one there, nor requested a single citation, nor contested an edit. He has made MANY inputs to Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism and Plastic Paddy. Any problems the above individuals have with J.A. seem to relate to those pages, and don't belong here. (Frankly, I don't think they have any merit anywhere.) Rosencomet 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Salix Alba. Mattisse is mentioned here for the following accusatory edits: [10], [11]. 999 (Talk) 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment via sockpuppet Frater Xyzzy, Jefferson Anderson here discloses connections with 999, Rosencomet, and, imho, gives a pretty clear indication that his actions at the CR article (where he misrepresents and attacks the contributions of myself and others) are retaliatory. Even if one were to believe that Xyzzy and Anderson are separate people, Anderson said they were working together, so this still illustrates the connection. Anderson/Xyzzy appeared out of nowhere and began following those who opposed the Starwood linkspam around Wikipedia, generally editing in opposition. No one set out to "harass" him, rather he suddenly appeared and began disruptive actions that seem to me to have been based on Wiki-stalking. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, he started following people involved in Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism and Plastic Paddy. He had no involvement in the Starwood article except to provide a category, Neo-Pagan Festivals, which he provided to other festivals. Stop putting the cart before the horse; the only connection to Starwood that J.A. has had was the one imposed on him by editors in this debate. And here "discloses" NO SUCH THING! Rosencomet 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hyperbole in front of the arbitrators makes you look bad. All parties are encouraged to be more moderate. Thatcher131 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

What is going on here?

1) Could I please have a bulleted list listing the issues that you want arbitrated? One simple declarative sentence per issue is all, like "JoeSmith has edit warred over insertion of links to a site he controls," or "JaneDoe and RogerDoger ganged up on JoeSmith and made personal attacks." There seems to be a lot going on here and it would help to see what exactly is contended in a simple list form. If you add a point please sign it. If the issue you care about has been added by someone else, please don't add it again (adding on a simple "me too" and signing your name only without the date by using three tildes might be helpful). Please don't edit someone else's point, or argue about it here. All I'm looking for is a simple list to help organize my thoughts. Thank you. Thatcher131 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An absence of clear policy and arbitrary enforcement of already established policies on WP:COI and WP:SPAM have led to a glut of internal and external links at Wikipedia which serve to promote the Starwood Festival, ACE LLC, WinterStar Symposium, Rosencomet.com and other related commercial interests above and beyond their real world notability. - WeniWidiWiki 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) --Me too. Pigman^{talk • contribs}[reply]
Rosencomet has exhibited WP:COI and onwership issues concerning modifications to entries that he has a personal interest in. - WeniWidiWiki 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) --Me too. Pigman^{talk • contribs}[reply]
Anyone who questioned the appropriateness of the links was subject to attack and harassment by 999, Hanuman Das, and Ekajati. Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosencomet, et al have persisted in violating Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community consensus, despite numerous editors pointing to these policies and guidelines numerous times over the course of months. Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the process of attempting to remove what they called "spam", the anti-Starwood parties reverted improvements to the articles to their own "despammed" versions rather than being discriminating in their removal of links. They were also frequently not civil, assuming the links were spam and refusing to discuss the possiblility, acknowledged by Samir and Salix Alba, that some of them might be valid and needed citations. Whenever meditation attempts came down to the idea that the links needed to be examined case-by-case to determine the merits of the link, the anti-Starwood parties would either cease communicating in the mediation, attempt to subvert it by claiming mediation wasn't need for such a clear policy violation, and finally opened this arbitration in order to attempt to make things go completely their way. 999 (Talk) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosencomet has NOT "persisted" in any of the accused behaviors above, but has rather worked hard for over two months supplying the kind of citations the mediators and the anti-starwood editors have previously said were needed, with no help from them. There is NOT a "Glut" of links, but reasonable verified and cited lists on the Starwood and WinterStar pages of notable past speakers and entertainers linked internally(similar to lists that can be found in other articles), and mentions of these notable appearances in the article of some (but not all) of these artists with 3rd-party citations supporting the mention's notability, and more are being added. The anti-Starwood editors are ignoring this, refusing to recognize improvements, refusing to consider any compromises, and will not stop trying to delete (or arrange to have deleted) material and call for punishment. They continue to characterize the event as "commercial" in spite of the repeated assertions that no one in ACE or the Starwood staff is paid for their work, and all money goes into programming. They ignore the mediators' requests for case-by-case discussion, and have tried to move the game whenever it doesn't go their way. In some cases, they have violated the spirit of the mediation and arbitration, then when someone objects they call it a personal attack. Rosencomet 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet

2) Other than the issue of adding self-promoting articles and links, is there evidence that Rosencomet has behaved badly in doing so (been uncivil, made personal attacks, edit warred, or in other ways acted disruptively)? I don't see it on the evidence page. Thatcher131 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from my statement on the Evidence page: "The Stewart Farrar article had a number of reverts, notable because they were reverts of edits by four different editors. First one removal of the Starwood links is reverted by Hanuman Das [12], then when removed again, another revert [13], and another [14], and, in violation of WP:3RR, another [15], and another [16]. Again an editor removes the Starwood reference and now Rosencomet continues the reverts here [17], and here [18]."

Many of the reverts and edit warring was done by the other parties but Rosencomet supported and participated in these actions. Here [19] his edit summary says "revert removal of citation by stalker" (me). The citation was a link to his group's website. Here [20] he again says "revert to 19:07, 18 November 2006 Rosencomet to rvs removal of citation by stalker" (me again). Again the citation was to his group's website.

This process of "defending" these links was often carried out by tag-teaming. Here are a few other examples of Rosencomet calling other editors vandals and stalkers in his edit summaries for removing the linkspam. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] This is only a small sampling. If you look at Rosencomet's contributions from this time period you will see many more. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My expectations regarding civility and personal attacks are probably higher than those of many in the community. Although I have found Rosencomet to be somewhat rude and prone to ad hominem arguments, he is certainly not among the rudest 20% of editors. (In my opinion at least). I would encourage Rosencomet to comment less on personalities and to assume good faith more often. However, I would say the same for quite a few editors. --BostonMA ^talk 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I switched out some templates at Starwood Festival diff and received a barrage of negative comments diff questioning my motives. Again, here. If you actually look at the edit history of that article, I don't think I've done anything to warrant that level of an attack, and I think it is just outright ownership issues at play. You'd probably have to read the whole exchange on the Starwood Festival talk page for context. - WeniWidiWiki 04:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the above instances to constitute "behaving badly". Yes, I disagree with Pigman's reasons for deleting the mention of Starwood in some places, and I considered the fact that he systematically went through article after article that I had contributed to and not only deleted links that were still being discussed in a mediation, but added phrases characterizing them as "Starwood linkspam" and "Gratuitous linkspam" as stalking. Maybe I don't understand the term well enough, but I'll bet he has the articles I've written and contributed to on a watchlist, and he's discussed me and them in a very negative fashion on many talk pages, including those of mediators.

And Weniwediwiki seems to consider those who express a differing opinion, except him/her, to be attacking. I strongly objected to the practice of IMO wrongly accusing people of attacking, no matter who does it, and I stand by that. I don't think I attacked, and I do think it was wrong to place those tags during this arbitration. Sadly, we may never agree on this point. Rosencomet 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Linking to your own site is discouraged

1) By common consent, as stated in WP:EL, linking to your own site or a site which you control is strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not have "my own site", nor do I control the ACE site in any way. The only links to that site were to satisfy repeated demands for citations by Matisse and her sock-puppets, citations that have been confirmed as proper for the purpose for which thay were used: to confirm that an appearance by that person at that event did indeed take place. Many of these have been taken down because it SEEMS that they are not required (although I still haven't seen a definative answer to this question). Rosencomet 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 22:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

2) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest provides that if you have a conflict of interest, you should:

avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Substantially changed, proposed as changed. Fred Bauder 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree. But that's not the same as saying it is forbidden. I have tried to edit factually and with an objective point of view. However, this arbitration began with discussions about the appropriateness of certain kinds of internal and external links. This can be discussed without accusations of COI - a citation link is either necessary, acceptable, or improper, and an internal link is either acceptable or not, no matter who places it there. And I do not have a vested interest, in that I am a volunteer and not paid for my services. I have my own unrelated business. Rosencomet 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are deeply involved, money or legal status has nothing to do with it. Fred Bauder 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states: "If you have a conflict of interest, you should: 1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors". That seems stronger than requiring circumspection. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, by itself, editing articles you have an interest in is not prohibited. It depends on one's behavior. Thatcher131 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

3) Drawing attention to real or alleged past misdeeds by editors, in the absense of an ongoing issue related to those misdeeds, if repeated sufficiently often, may be considered harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed There might be better wording for what is intended, but this seems close. --BostonMA ^talk 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please specify the amount of time needed for mention of real or alleged misdeeds to become harassment. I'd like to know when this entire issue becomes harassment, especially since I have done real work to correct and/or alleviate those actions that have been objected to (unlike Mattisse). Also, how does this relate to the accusations now being laid against Ekajati, 999, and Hanuman Das (who has withdrawn from both the arbitration and Wikipedia). Rosencomet 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response The intent of the proposed principle is that excessive mention of past faults becomes harassment. Perhaps an exception needs to be made for mention of issues made as part of dispute resolution. It is not my opinion that you Rosencomet, are guilty of harassment per se. I do believe that it is not productive for you to blame Mattisse for events that occurred in August/early September. In your case, I believe that your understanding of the dispute resolution process might be different from mine, and that your aim is not to harass or annoy. On the other hand, I think that tagging edits made by accounts identified as sockpuppet accounts months after the fact can have little value to the articles involved. At that point, presumably the edits have been evaluated on their own merits regardless of who made them. Retroactively tagging the edits months later, however, suggests vindictiveness and harassment. For me, the time that has elapsed is one factor. Other factors include a) the repetitiveness of drawing attention to previous misconduct, whether real or suspected, b) the absense of an ongoing issue with respect to such misconduct. These factors together are, in my opinion, what raises certain conduct to the level of harassment. I am particularly concerned with a string of edits such as this. --BostonMA ^talk 01:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose offtopic. 999 (Talk) 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is relevent to the motion to place Hanuman Das on civility parole. --BostonMA ^talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To BostonMa - First, the statement above seems to blame me for tags placed on sockpuppet accounts, which I have not done. Second, as to "blaming Mattisse for things she did in August/September", well, it might not be productive to bring it up, but if it DOES come up, who else but the person who did it is to blame? Third, if the time elapsed makes it moot, and the edits have been judged by the test of time, then the same goes for my work on this article. Will you join me in calling for the end to accusations of COI and the placement of tags on the Starwood article inviting the deletion of the work there? Or is it only the actions of Mattisse that become "old news", but I still have to put up with the same attempts as always to accuse me of wrong-doing, destroy my contributions, and drive me away. (Not by you, of course). If "excessive mention of past faults becomes harassment", I don't see any rationalization for an exception just to exclude me. Rosencomet 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Clearly defined policy

4) A clearly defined and non-arbitrary policy needs to be created concerning the onwership issues and external & internal links within the Starwood Festival and all related entries. Editors should not have to debate every single edit or modification to an entry with the promoter, who has a vested interest in the portrayal of the article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The promoter and his friends need to limit their participation to the talk pages. Fred Bauder 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The protectionist and onwership issues are still going on, despite claims to the contrary. I swapped out two templates on the Starwood Festival here and here and was immediately attacked for "circumnavigating the arbitration" on the talk page here. - WeniWidiWiki 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP THIS ATTACK NONSENSE! Every time someone disagrees with you is not an attack. I did not take down your tags, did I? How is a comment on the talk page "protectionist"? Yes, I think that putting a "laundry list" tag on lists that are in an article under arbitration, in effect inviting others who may or may not be aware of the controversy to start deleting material from it (or even the entire thing), constitutes circumnavigating the arbitration which involves the appropriateness of those very lists. The tags declare them "unencyclopedic", which is a matter of opinion being arbitrated here, and the site the tags link to simply list them as articles to be cleaned up without any mention of the arbitration going on. Perhaps "A clearly defined and non-arbitrary policy needs to be created concerning" THAT. I put an objection to the placement of those tags on the talk page of the article, and my reasons, which is only proper IMO. THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK ON YOU! It's time to stop all these unwarranted accusations and take the emotional content down a notch. Rosencomet 22:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:AGF and accusing me of "circumnavigating an ongoing arbitration" in polar terms of "pro-Starwood /anti-Starwood" is an attack. Replying in all upper-case blocks of text and making demands upon me to STOP! is an attack, and patently unreasonable, bordering on hysterical.- WeniWidiWiki 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Neither are attacks, nor unreasonable, nor hysterical. You may not want to see these words, but that does not make them something they are not. In my opinion, you were trying to circumnavigate the arbitration. You deny that. Fine, that's your right; so we disagree. But you have accused me of "protectionist and ownership issues" when unlike you, I did NOT touch the article, merely made comments on the talk page. You have accused me of "immediately attacking" you, when I simply responded to your action with my opinion of it, that it was inappropriate, and my belief that it should be taken down. You have come to this arbitration with these accusations of wrongdoing. If anyone has been attacked, I have; and you, Pigman and Kathryn have violated AGF regarding me PLENTY. You are trying to paint me as an attacker to the participants of this arbitration for daring to object to something you have done, and explaining why I thought it was inappropriate, on a talk page.

And let me say that I will not apologize for my plea (though I will take off the bold if it makes you feel better), which goes out to ALL the people who keep using this language, not just you: Please stop all this attack nonsense! This is not a "demand"; note the word "please" in that sentence. In my opinion, these are ploys to garner sympathy and paint the opposition as villains. I have attacked no one, and I don't think 98% of what has been called attacks on ALL sides relating to this whole issue really are such.Rosencomet 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ownership of Articles

1) Wikipedia articles are not owned by individuals or even small groups per WP:OWN. While individuals or regular Wikipedians may have an interest in a particular article and its contents, this should never trump consensus or good faith edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pigman should re-read Wiki:Kettle. However, I will agree with this proposal if he understands, and in the spirit of AGF, that "good faith edits" may be made by individuals and/or members of a group with such an interest. I see no difference between the edits I have been making, at least after the first couple of months when I was still a Wiki newby (and I still feel like one in many respects), and those he, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki make on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism and other articles. Yet he has called for an indefinite ban on me, not only on the Starwood article but ANY article linked to it. Rosencomet 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Assume Good Faith, and Civility

1) WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are both key principles of the wikipedia community. The failure to observe these principles, from the reaction to initial insertion of {{fact}} tags, to labelling every negative remark as harrassment has resulted in the escilation of the dispute to one where the underlying content dispute has largely been forgotton.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

propose --Salix alba (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Rosencomet 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The use of a sock puppet make it impossible for others to AGF

1) By it very nature the use of a sockpuppet involves deception. It make it difficult for other users to know who is who, creating confusions and a climate of conspiracy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

propose --Salix alba (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Rosencomet 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

An allegation of sock puppetry represents a complete failure in AGF

1) Likewise an allegation of sock-puppetry shows failure in the good faith that a user is who they say they are. It creates a climate of suspicion and paranoia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

propose --Salix alba (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, except where this contradicts your other proposal just above. That is, if there is overwhelming evidence that someone actually is flagrantly using sockpuppets, and especially if it is proven, on can hardly accuse someone who alleges that this is so of failing to assume good faith. One assumes innocence only until the accused is proven guilty. I would extend this to other behaviors as well.Rosencomet 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Who's who

1) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:_

Proposed finding of fact. -999 (Talk) 05:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - good neutral description, 999! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I truly feel that there would be less anger directed against me, and far less unnecessary work and dispute between many editors, if not for the intentional trouble-making evidenced above. The first criticism I got for mistakes I made as a newby were from Hanuman Das, who switched to being helpful when he saw I was well-meaning, and was aided by Salix Alba, 999, and Ekajati who all contributed to a better article. None of Matisse's actions led to anything but unpleasant interaction. Rosencomet 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was only by mattise adding fact tags that I became aware of starwood etc. Fact tags, done well are basically to say thats there is a problem here. The better respose is to address the issue and find citations, rather than get into a big dispute about whether there should be a tag or not. I did feel the first fact tags on the starwood page were appropriate as there was a lot uncited in the article, I would not have given the article attention if it were not for the tags. They are rather a rough tool, but can help to bring improvment of articles and are good faith edits. --Salix alba (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, your initial response was the same as mine and 999's: you tried to supply the citations requested. However, when the numbers of tags kept growing, and some of yours were being contested, you said this: "Oh man, this is getting quite silly. Pages on the Starwood site mention all these performers; these are quite unnecessary." And this was, presumably, BEFORE you found out that ALL the citation requests were by the same person using several sockpuppets. Rosencomet 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - lacks objectivity and neutrality. In particular item 3 presents the adding of {{fact}} tags and the objection to link spam as good hand/bad hand usage. Tagging assertions with {{fact}} tags is neither a request for link spam nor does it justify the use of link spam. An editor who adds a {{fact}} tag to an assertion is not thereby precluded from subsequently objecting to an inappropriate link added as a reference to that assertion. --BostonMA ^talk 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, asking for a citation doesn't preclude you from evaluating the citation supplied as invalid. However, in this case there were DOZENS of citations requested by Mattisse and her socks challenging the simple fact that the people listed had appeared at the event, citations were supplied from the programs posted on the ACE website that were valid for that purpose (as later confirmed by the Mediation), then OTHER socks of Mattisse claimed that the NUMBER of citations was out of control, and that the INTENT of those supplying them was to "linkspam" and "google-bomb". She went on to rally other editors to help eliminate the excessive links under her own name, while actually ADDING to them with her own articles and links via sockpuppets that she ATTRIBUTED to "the Starwood people". This behavior, and doing it with phony names as if it were objections by multiple editors, is certainly "good hand/bad hand usage". Rosencomet 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk page. --BostonMA ^talk 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with BostonMA. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see the point in persuing this. This is very old news and just dredges up the past, preventing us from moving on. Yes Mattise did use sockpuppets, this was delt with by administrators at the time, resulting in a short block and since then she has refained from using puppets. Mattisse has largely disengaged from matters relating to starwood, only getting annoyed when anyone brings up the incident again.

It is time to focus on the matter at hand, the number of links to Starwood have been reduced somewhat and we are getting closer to a situation where most of the links are appropriate.

The question is now where do we go from here? How do we close this issue once and for all, so we can all get on with editing wikipedia in a civil manner. --Salix alba (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Salix alba on the issue of Mattisse's sockpuppets. I think the sockpuppet issue is a distraction from more central issues in this arbitration. However, it is important as it relates to harassment issues. Mattisse turned to sockpuppets to avoid harassment from editors "protecting" these articles and links. I have experienced harassment directly resulting from my opinions and actions on these articles, and I have seen others harassed for the same reasons by the same tag team of "protectors". It continues to be ugly and unpleasant to this day. I continue to contend that editors are avoiding these articles due to this harassment and that editing these articles in any manner is contentious and difficult far beyond their importance. These articles aren't about Palestine or abortion. We shouldn't have to fight to enter staked out territory on Wikipedia. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can't have it both ways. If Mattisse's improper actions, which caused so much of the problem, are "old news", then so is the behavior that preceded it and that which took place only as a reaction to it. Frankly, I would say that there is no point in pursuing this entire issue. I have not made any contentious edits since at least the beginning of November, and I would argue that though those I made for the previous month were a matter for discussion, they were handled in a civil manner after interplay between various editors.

Second, Mattisse did NOT "turn to sockpuppets to avoid harassment from editors "protecting" these articles and links" as Pigman says. I made my first ever edit on August 13th, accompanied by a disclosure of my relationship to the organization that runs the festival. Mattisse placed her first tag on August 20th. Her second one, on the same day, was to add a tag that claimed to have been there for 5 days in it's text, which was taken down by Hanuman Das. She began using sockpuppets on the 22nd, with NO harassment to react to. Salix Alba and 999 helped me scramble for citations to satisfy her many tags. By the 23rd, she had used 3 sockpuppets, and added a 4th by the 26th (Flinders, who also created fake articles linked to Starwood), another on the 30th, and another on September 4th. These were not a reaction to harassment; they WERE harassment. 999 said on the 23rd, "What, are you going to ask for a reference for every damn speaker, sheesh." Even Salix Alba said on August 24th "Oh man, this is getting quite silly. Pages on the Starwood site mention all these performers; these are quite unnecessary."

Third, in the past two months I have primarily been REDUCING the number of speakers and entertainers, which now only include those notable enough to have their own articles (except for two of the directors of ACE). Those names are only linked internally, or to third-party sources. I have added MANY third-party sources, as requested, and there are quite a few references. I feel that the remaining lists, which are much more readable (thanks to help from WeniWediWiki), are acceptable. (They do NOT represent "all those who have appeared at Starwood" by any means.) Any discussion of the inappropriateness of a specific link either there or on another article should be handled on a case-by-case basis on the talk pages of the articles, as per the mediation run by Che.

Fourth, Pigman's contention that "editors are avoiding these articles due to this harassment and that editing these articles in any manner is contentious and difficult far beyond their importance" flies in the face of the facts. I have not harassed ANYONE from the time I began editing, and objections to deletion of work by other editors is not harassment. Civil cooperation has taken place between those on both sides of this issue in the past several weeks, and Pigman himself has never been an editor of this article. (If Mattisse avoids editing this article, I can't say this is a bad thing considering her history with it.) I don't see a group of editors preserving text that is factual and acceptable by Wiki standards to be a problem or to be anything but the norm on Wikipedia; whether here, or on the Celtic Reconstructionism article, or on any of the articles I've seen those on the other side of this issue "protect". And well they should, considering the vandalism that takes place throughout the encyclopedia with alarming frequency. I don't think further action is required by this arbitration. (Not that I'm objecting to it by any means; I just wonder if the parties involved still think it is necessary.)Rosencomet 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw offtopic. 999 (Talk) 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:_

Personal attacks by 999

1) 999 has made personal attacks: "you seem to be some sort of anti-pagan bigot" including a pejorative racial term "Paleface"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't think this accusation really belongs here; in fact, there have been several accusations of harassment and so-called racial slurs that I don't think are appropriate, especially when introduced by non-involved editors. While the language is a bit harsh, I think 999 was reacting to a campaign by Mattisse using multiple sock-puppets against a newby that he suspected was an attack with an anti-Pagan motive, and asked if this was so. This is serious inappropriate behavior. As to the "paleface" comment, I can't find the entire exchange, but it makes no sense to consider the intent to be racial since the races of neither parties are evident. I suspect it was a reference to the old Bill Cosby Lone Ranger/Tonto joke ("What you mean WE, Paleface"), and it would be stretching things to suggest that 999 was trying to somehow imply that Mattise's possible Caucasion status had something to do with her inappropriate editing. In any case, dredging these comments up from August out of context of the entire exchanges seems totally unconstructive, and I think this stuff should be deleted as unimportant to the Starwood arbitration. Rosencomet 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rosencomet here. Yes, it would have been better if 999 had been more tactful. But I also read that as a reference to the Lone Ranger, though maybe I'm just revealing too much info about my age, here... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely on topic for this arbitration. Its these sort of comments which have led to extream reactions: mattises use of sockpuppets and withdrawal from starwood related matters and Timmy12 leaving wikipedia. Its one of the problems with the internet that its easy to miss read the intention of a comment, while it may have been ment as a joke it was not taken that way. --Salix alba (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but these statements are simply not true. Mattisse's use of sock-puppets PREDATES 999's comment on August 21st. NLOleson began editing August 20th, and GBYork began August 15th. You are both putting the cart before the horse, and accusing the victim of the crime, since it was Mattisse's edits (which you yourself criticized back then) that led to 999's reaction, not the other way around. You should really stop trying to find excuses for it. Also, Mattisse's withdrawal from Starwood-related matters is merely a front, as she has been quite involved on talk pages rallying folks to action and fanning the flames. And HER reason for withdrawing had nothing to do with "these sort of comments", as you can read in her statement at the beginning of this arbitration. She said that her involvement had to do with Hanuman Das, and since he had withdrawn and she claimed to have no problem with me, she requested to be withdrawn herself.

Statement by Mattisse from December 17th:

If User:Hanuman Das has withdrawn I have very little issue here. He was the primary person who harassed me along with User:999 (who is on wikibreak) and User:Ekajati (who has not been named). I have no particular issue with Rosencomet separate from what people will cover here independent of my comments. My primary issue was the harassment. As far as Rosencomet is concerned, I feel he was enabled and condoned by those around him on Wikipedia. But he did not harass me or cause me personal grief. Therefore, I wish to withdraw from this arbitration as it has no relevance to me at this point. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Rosencomet 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Ekajati

1) Ekajati has made personal attacks: "Little Miss hypocrite" and "Me mum always used ta tell me "Watch out for the Irish, they're more than a wee bit inclined to make things out'a whole cloth, they are."" towards Kathryn NicDhàna, who self-identifies as being Irish, a allegation of a negative trait being prevalent amongst a certain racial group.`

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Mea culpa, I was drinking scotch at the time, not an excuse, but I had intended to apologize. Maybe I did, but my recollection is that Kathryn immediately asked me not to post on her talk page again, so maybe I didn't. If not, I ask that Kathryn accept my apologies now. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, again, it's difficult to evaluate someone's use of language when the comments are taken out of context. The "Little Miss Hypocrite" comment, which has evidentally been changed to "Little Miss Inconsistent" in a later version (which might explain the response "I'm not your Little Miss anything"), seems very different after comparing the accusations Kathryn NicDhàna has repeatedly levied re: Starwood with the facts surrounding the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism controversy. And a brief look at the paragraph the "whole cloth" comment comes from should show that Ekajati was trying to be humorous, obviously to the wrong audience. (I suspect he/she made the comment after too much time reviewing the information surrounding the CRP issue, and/or the Plastic Paddy one.) It may have been "more than a wee bit" inappropriate, but pretty mild IMO. In any event, I still feel this "racial slur" non-issue is a distraction and has nothing to do with this arbitration. Rosencomet 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I have to say, of everybody's behavior in this affair, Ekajati has to be the one who's been the least nasty. Unless someone cares about this enough to dig up a lot more examples, I don't see what purpose making much of this makes. 999 (Talk) 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mattisse's sockpuppets

1) That Mattisse did not turn to the use of sockpuppet due to harassment, but rather to harass. The evidence present by Ekajati shows that the first sockpuppet was created on Aug. 20, 11 hours before Mattisse had engaged in any action for which she might have been harassed in retaliation. Subsequent sockpuppets were created in quick succession from Aug 21 through Aug 27. As far as I can tell, no evidence of harassment of Mattisse prior to August 27 has been provided. Thus, the contention that Mattisse only turned to sockpuppetry due to having been harassed does not appear to be a valid assertion. 999 (Talk) 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed 999 (Talk) 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. In fact, her sockpuppet User:GBYork was created on August 15th, fully 6 days BEFORE your comment AND her first edit on the Starwood article. She was doing this to other articles before this one. Rosencomet 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Offtopic. 999 (Talk) 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Hanuman Das

1) Hanuman Das has made several personal attacks [30] [31] including one suggestive comment addressing Kathryn as "hun".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Added another diff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way is "hun" a "personal attack"? The old joke - when you assume you make an "ass" of "u" and "me" - is neither personal nor an attack. It does imply that Hanuman Das thought Kathryn made an assumption, and that assumptions are a mistake. "Hun", short for "honey" I'm sure (unless you think he was calling her German or something), may be overly familiar or a little condescending, but do you really want to use this as evidence of "personal attacks"? Just how thin-skinned are we all supposed to be? As an arbitrator, do you really want to encourage the parties to sift through the months of conversations and catalog every word or phrase that could possibly be taken as an offense? Is this a positive direction to steer this arbitration?Rosencomet 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

propose --Salix alba (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I suspect the arbitrators will do whatever they are going to do about H.D. regardless of what anyone thinks about this. He's not here to defend himself, and I have no reason to come to his defense myself. On the other hand I don't condone such personal attacks, but he's no longer here which makes it not my concern. 999 (Talk) 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) That User:Kathryn NicDhana has engaged in personal attacks against Jefferson Anderson, and worse, not to him directly, but to third parties: [36], [37], [38]. To me, this appears to be harassment and not the other way around.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment I find the assertion to be unfounded by your diff....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed 999 (Talk) 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with a sigh. I wish all these accusations on BOTH sides would go away. Rosencomet 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw off-topic. 999 (Talk) 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Incivility in General

Comment Frankly, I'm with BostonMa (if I understand his intent), and I wish all these harassment accusations would just be struck and dispensed with, and especially the ones using the "race card". I don't think ANY of the parties on EITHER side of this issue were guilty of ANY of this, except perhaps in the mildest way in the heat of the moment (and with too quick a "send button" finger), and all apologies (even when accepted) are being ignored. I'd prefer we all thicken our skins and direct ourselves to the issues; this whole arbitration has become an appalling and childish emotional display IMO. Most of what's being brought up here is not personal and not attacks. I don't really want to collect links to the many harsh things that have been said to and about me since I started to edit here, and re-hash things most of the commentors probably wish they hadn't said. Believe me, anyone who has been the target of the real thing would be amazed at these crocodile tears and broken-wing acts, aimed at either garnering sympathy or keeping things even. I think I've done a lot to respond to the criticisms of those on the other side of the issue. I also think that the article is factual & reasonable, and the lists are supported, linked internally, and not causing any problems. Can't we just end this before it gets nastier and more emotional? Can't we all go back to creating and improving articles, creating discographies & bibliographies, researching references, fact-checking, and updating info? Who knows, maybe if you give it time and a bit of cooperation the results will be something you're glad became part of Wikipedia. Will anyone "winning" this fight, investing more of their emotions in it, or taking up more time on our parts and the arbitrators' accomplish ANYTHING that you WANT to accomplish? Rosencomet 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet has ignored the results of a mediation

1) Here is the summation of the results of a mediation by the mediator on 19-Dec-2006. Here is a history page which shows 23 separate edits by Rosencomet to the Starwood Festival page since that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Pigman (talk • contribs)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Very Strongly Oppose An examination of these edits will show that they are not contentious. In fact THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PIGMAN AND CO.! They consist of REDUCTIONS of links, civil interactions between myself and BostonMa & Wenwediwiki, and the addition of references and third-party citations. They were done only AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE MEDIATOR. Except for such efforts to HELP this situation, I have not been directly editing this article.

(One exception to this was a reversion of the re-insertion of references to "satanists" in the article, and related tweaks, after a first reversion done by another editor WITH discussion with the mediator, and a warning was placed by the mediator on the talk page of the editor who inserted it. Here are some links to that whole problem [39][40], and here is the mediator's warning: "Also, please refrain from adding potentially provocative and controversial material, particularly to such a contested article as the Starwood article, without sourcing them. The claim that Starwood is popular among, for instance, Satanists would require sourcing. - Che Nuevara 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)")

Look at [41] and [42] for these conversations.

I have clearly NOT ignored the mediation; I have worked with it. Pigman, on the other hand, called for this arbitration while the mediation was ongoing, when no statement that it had concluded had been posted, and several editors had said that the mediation was working and that doing so was an attempt to short-circuit it.

Pigman seems unable to even SEE anything positive I do, any compliance with requests, any compromise position. I don't think he's ever recognized a bit of it, or stopped repeating the same acusations and demands as he did at the beginning of his involvement in this issue. It is my opinion that he has also swayed others away from more moderate and compromising positions. For instance, in the mediations, these statements were made:

One way to resolve the dispute is to arrive an an objective criteia as to when it is appropriate to include a reference to Starwood fesitval on a particular performers page. While a link on the starwood website or the performers tour dates established that a performer appeared at Starwood, it does not establish that this performance was notable. It is not standard practice in wikipedia to list all the places where a performer has performed.Such an objective criteria would be a third party source which establishes a link between the performer and starwood. --Salix alba (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Septegram. I would not have a problem with the Starwood Festival page listing all of the people who have been featured at a Starwood festival. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe Starwood is notable enough to have an article, and that it is acceptable to list former presenters and performers on the Starwood page, assuming the presenters/performers are reasonably notable within the small pond and it's not just listcruft. --Kathryn NicDhàna ??? 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur.Septegram 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to satisfy the parties has been like standing on ever-shifting sand. What the issue really is, what would accomodate them, what would make things right changes to something else every time I supply what's been requested. The compromise proposed by Septegram in the mediation, the support from Che Nuevara and BostonMa for the efforts I've put out, the deletion of all individuals not notable enough to have their own articles (except two directors of the event's host org) and many external AND internal links, the addition of references and 3rd-party citations, all this falls on deaf ears with Pigman. He clearly (IMO) wants to stop me from making ANY edits, contentious or not. Rosencomet 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ROFLMAO, Paul. Hadn't you already subverted the mediation by filing for arbitration three days earlier? I have to say that I've seen two discussions get to the point where there seemed to be agreement that the internal links needed to be discussed on a one by one basis. But no, that's not good enough for Paul, he'll only settle for the outright removal of all links, so when the mediation got to that point, he opened the arbitration. Also, Paul seems not to understand mediation, where the mediator is to help the other parties reach an agreement. The statement that Paul has pointed to is not a "result" of mediation, but simply the opinion of the mediator posted to assist the parties to come to an agreement. Only when the parties agree is there a result of mediation, but Paul purposely preempted the process when it was nearing conclusion, throwing any progress made into doubt.

Nor did Paul "give" anything in mediation, but only wanted others to "give in", which is the real reason mediation failed. If Paul and Kathryn would have agreed that the internal links needed to be examined on a case by case basis, the mediation would have achieved a result, but they didn't and went to arbitration instead, after discussing preempting it on their and WWW's talk pages. 999 (Talk) 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arbitrator Blnguyen establishes an injuction de facto

1) Recused Arbitrator places an injuction over User:Jefferson Anderson (one week long) without the ArbCom's consent neither proposing it anywhere [43], assuming a priori a charge against him that the ArbCom hasn't even discussed. --Neigel von Teighen 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed on behalf of User:Jefferson Anderson --Neigel von Teighen 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support JA has made a reasonable explinations above for why he and Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs · logs) shared the same IP. The other set of blocked user A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · logs), Ekajati (talk · contribs · logs), Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs · logs) Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · logs) have had several parties to this arbitration question the decision, and some support it [44] --Salix alba (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and I oppose Blnguyen's unilateral action. I have found evidence that is he wrong about Ekajati and Hanuman Das never having overlapping edit sessions, which I will be posting on the evidence page. What else might he be wrong about? 999 (Talk) 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and I also Oppose Blnguyen's unilateral action. Although he did not sign in originally as an arbitrator of this issue, he has commented and made proposals, all in seeming advocacy of one side of this issue. His actions regarding Jefferson Anderson, Ekajati and Hanuman Das have been reckless and impulsive, and have taken place with no attempt to allow for contrary evidence or to inform them of his intentions. They now seem to be unsupported by the facts. He has reclused himself, which I think is proper. I think the actions he's taken should be reversed as well. Rosencomet 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw --Neigel von Teighen 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

OK, this is definitely what Fred means when he talks about legalisms. It is within the discretion of any admin to block someone who has been caught using sockpuppets. It is not a de facto injunction and arbcom does not need to be consulted. The argument "It was my friend at work" is frequently seen at the pages of WP:RFCU; such an argument can not be evaluated technically but only by human judgement. If Frater wants to edit he can post the unblock message or use the unblock-L mailing list. Same for Jefferson. As long as Blnguyen has recused from a decision-making role, he is free to involve himself in this case just as any other editor may do so. Thatcher131 02:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the problem is that Jefferson Anderson has been proved by CheckUser to not be related (see here) to any of the users here. No one should be suspected of something that isn't proved, or am I wrong? That's my point. I have asked Blnguyen for this but he hasn't answered me yet. --Neigel von Teighen 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. CU said that they were linked. As far as HD goes, I know have solid technical evidence provided to show that HD and Ekajati are the same. See this [45]. Thus the block stands. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how is JA related? Didn't you blocked Ok, I withdraw this mainly because JA is out of the arbitration after Thatcher and Fred's striking out, but your explanation doesn't satisfy me very much. --Neigel von Teighen 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson and Frater definitely seem to be related. Therefore, one is indef blocked and the other is blocked for a week. Thatcher131 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser results on Ekajati

1) Ekajati (talk · contribs) has edited as A Ramachandran (talk · contribs), and Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs).[46] User:Ekajati "voted" with both the Ekajati and the Tunnels of Set account at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Irrelevant and a privacy violation as neither user edited Starwood articles or committed policy violations. I believe that both the admin who ran checkuser and Blnguyen were irresponsible to reveal alternate accounts which wre not being used for policy violations or harassment. She may have been transitioning away from involvement with this matter. I myself find it hard to do anything editing other than involved with this arbitration and am sorely tempted to create another account so that I can edit in peace. However, as I'm certain that it would be detected and used as "evidence" of evasion of something or other, I haven't. If an editor wants to turn over a new leaf and get away from this mess, and don't violate any policies with the new account, I say let 'em. 999 (Talk) 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 999. This does not belong in this arbitration. Rosencomet 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have my doubts about the whole thing, since Blnguyen's claim that Ekajati and Hanuman Das has been proven false, why should we be believing anything else he and his checkuser buddy are saying. I'd have to see a formal checkuser report. Did all three edit from the same IP address? Or simply from the same subnet? Or did one pair edit from one address/subnet and another pair from another address/subnet. It's impossible to know how connected these users are from the comment you've linked to. 999 (Talk) 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Rosencomet unfortunately, I think it does belong in the arbitration now, since unilateral actions were taken that only stand any chance of being overturned by the other arbitrators. 999 (Talk) 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK It didn't belong here before, but now the matter certainly belongs in the hands of the arbitrators. Rosencomet 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment don't beleive it. I've posted evidence which shows differences between all these users on AN/I. --Salix alba (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Ramachandran admits to being the same person as Tunnels of Set[47], but denies being Hanuman Das. [48]. --Salix alba (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Jkelly 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Blnguyen and Dmcdevit identified A Ramachandran and Tunnels of Set as sockpuppets per checkuser. The fact that they were used to vote on the same AfD is justification for blocking the socks. Whether it is important to this case remains to be seen. The issue of Hanuman Das is more complicated. Hanuman can not be techincally compared with Ekajati due to age of his last edits, so a determination needs to be made by analysis of their behavior, something about which reasonable people may differ. Thatcher131 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We got the IP and it was positive. [See this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither A Ramachandran nor Tunnels of Set ever edited the Starwood Festival article. They have declared themselves the same person, but not Ekajati, and evidentally has no interest in this arbitration. Should this not be a separate issue? Rosencomet 17:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recent Rosencomet Edits

1) Since BEFORE this arbitration began, Rosencomet has reduced the number of external AND internal links being referred to here significantly, has reduced the number of names in the lists on the Starwood Festival article, has provided dozens of 3rd-party citations and references, has engaged other editors on talk pages rather than making contentious edits, and has consulted mediators before major editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rosencomet (talk · contribs) significantly expanded the articles Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and Winterstar Symposium, created numerous articles on artists who participate in these events, and added links to Starwood to the articles of many other artists.
Rosencomet's articles attracted the attention of several editors with interests in neo-paganism.
One group of editors, including Paul_Pigman (talk · contribs), Timmy12 (talk · contribs), Mattisse (talk · contribs), WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs), BostonMA (talk · contribs) and Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs), contend that Rosencomet is personally associated with the Starwood festival, is editing under a conflict of interest, that otherwise notable people suddenly had tacked on to their bios: "And then they appeared at The Starwood Festival" and that his edits generally constituted linkspam. These editors acted to remove links and enforce policies related to notability, reliable sources and conflict of interest, as they interpreted them.
A second group of editors, including Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), 999 (talk · contribs), and Ekajati (talk · contribs), defended the notability of the Starwood artists and the suitability of the links.
Both sides allege the other side has engaged in sockpuppetry and harassment.
A separate conflict arose between Paul Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna on one side, and Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs), and Jefferson Anderson (talk · contribs), on the other side, over Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Frater and Anderson also participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum, which involved most of the parties in this case. Although Frater and Anderson were not named in the initial request, evidence was filed against them by Paul Pigman, alleging they are continuing the harassment begun by others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alternative to "locus of dispute." I'm trying to figure out how Frater Xyzzy and Jefferson Anderson got involved, since they do not seem to have been part of the original dispute. Up to the arbitrators whether to consider Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism here or whether to exclude it and ask for dispute resolution or a separate request. The only significant commonality among the two disputes have in common is the involvement of Pigman and NicDhàna in both, and the participation of Frater and Anderson in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum. Thatcher131 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with Fred Bauder, the Frater/Anderson matter will be severed from this case. Parties may make a separate request to hear it. Thatcher131 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet

2) Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is associated with the Association for Consciousness Exploration [54], which stages the Starwood festival and Winterstar Symposium. His first edits to Wikipedia were to greatly enlarge Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [55] and to create numerous articles for performers and presenters (see the evidence page here). Most of these articles contained internal links to Starwood Festival and either contained, or would later come to contain, external web links to http://www.rosencomet.com/starwood.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment I began editing and creating articles in acord with the information I had access to, as I say on my very first edit, because I thought that was the best way for me to make a contribution. The links were created to address the tags put there by Mattisse and her sockpuppets, then protected out of fear that the material would be taken down without the requested citations as unverified. Once the mediation seemed to conclude that they were not needed (and were actually considered inappropriate by some), they began to be removed. Rosencomet 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet's editing

3) Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others. [56] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [57] [58] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. Rosencomet has still not fully grasped the importance of using third party reliable sources [59] [60] [61], although there have been improvements [62] [63].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Re: Improvements please note the many 3rd party citations listed on the evidence page[64], and the fact that I have replaced several links to the ACE website from articles with them or simply deleted the link (and some internal ones as well). Also, initially there was disagreement as to whether any other citation was necessary besides the ACE ones for the purpose for which they were used, as a look at the mediations will show. Rosencomet 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Important to show improvement as well as early problems. Thatcher131 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

4) Whatever his past sins, checkuser shows Mattisse currently using no sockpuppets and not editing articles related to this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fred, of the Mattisse socks listed here, apparently checkusered by Rdsmith4 in September, the ones marked with an X edited Starwood articles and/or were in conflict with the other editors in this case, including some double voting on AfD and at least keep vote in an AfD nominated by Mattisse, which was ultimately deleted due to the large number of SPA accounts voting keep. Thatcher131 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which AfD? Fred Bauder 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber. These socks voted to keep [65] [66]. This sock commented [67]. This sock voted to delete [68] and commented extensively. Thatcher131 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of Mattisse

4.1) There is evidence that one cause of the current trouble was disruptive "work to rule" edits by sockpuppets of Mattisse to Starwood Festival and related articles: edits by NLOleson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [69] [70] [71] Jeff Rosenbaum? [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. His activities were not limited to Starwood Festival, but extended to other articles [77]. As Flinders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this trollish edit was made to Starwood Festival.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tentative Fred Bauder 21:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mattisse and her sock puppets mass tagging of articles and removal of links was certainly part of the problem here. Thatcher131 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse's edits to discredit the pro-Starwood editors

4.2) Mattisse has engaged in a pattern of deceptive editing using sockpuppets to discredit the pro-Starwood editors. For example, using the sockpuppet Flinders (talk · contribs) she created the article Musart [78] and linked it to the Starwood festival. As Mattisse, she complained about the article [79]. Mattisse nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber, in which four sockpuppets participated, including some voting keep [80] [81] [82] [83]. (The AfD was closed as delete due to the number of SPA accounts involved.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed Thatcher131 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati

5) A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see here. 999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a likely sockpuppet of Ekajati, determined by contributions and checkuser [84]. It is also likely that Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Ekajati as well. (In addition to the analysis here and here, also note that traceroute shows that the same server is one hop upstream of two IPs used by Hanuman and the IP claimed by A Ramachandran [85] [86] [87]). Chai Walla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Hanuman Das that had been inactive, but became active after the other accounts were blocked. All accounts are currently blocked indefinitely, except for Ekajati (blocked for 6 months).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

50% bullshit. 999 now blocked. On Mattisse RfC, Hanamus Das is blocked and spends the time compilling evidence which he inserts as soon as block expires, meanwhile 999 edits the case extensivly and Ekajati decideds not to contribute. These don't look like the action of a single person to me. Ramachandran admits to being a sock of Tunnels_of_Set and husband of Ekajati. Evidence for connecting between Ekajati and 999 scant: basically live in nearby cities. Lots of cross posts on each others talk pages. I suspect there is an alternative explination for much of this. --Salix alba (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor: go for the simplest explination. Not some elaborate single puppet master, who can at will change personality, and weave an elaborate plot, spending hours posting comments to himself so that no one in the future would suspect sockpuppetry (remeber back then no one had made any acussations of puppetry so there was no need to weave this complicated web of deceipt). No we have a group of friends with some limited uses of puppets to edit articles which have certain negative stigmas attached (i.e occult articles). Their friendship explains the common interests in the article they edit and also a group mentality in relation to this case and the actions they took. Firendship may explain some edits from others computers or possibly recommending an ISPs to each other, it certainly explains similarity in location. I urge the arbitrators to WP:AGF and consider the explinations provided by the various parties. --Salix alba (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Salix Alba. Rosencomet 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 14:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the diffs I posted. Traceroute shows that the same roadrunner server is one hop upstream of A Ramachandran's current IP as well as two IPs previously used by Hanuman. Between the e-mail you received and one I recieved, the least we can say is that Ramachandran and Ekajati live in the same neighborhood as Hanuman (not just a "nearby city"), remarkably share the same topical interests, including voting on dozens of the same AfDs, and that Ekajati coincidentally joined Wikipedia 4 hours after Hanuman was blocked last April. The alternative is that we have a clever and dedicated sockpuppeteer who has carefully controlled his personae. Without knowing the IP's that 999 and Chai Walla used recently I can't evaluate Dmcdevit's conclusions, but I trust him. More importantly, most of the arbitrators are checkusers and they can double-check these results before voting. Thatcher131 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by Ekajati/Hanuman Das/999

5.1) Hanuman Das, Ekajati and 99 have engaged in votestacking on multiple AfDs [88], edit warring (including inappropriate characterization of content disputes as vandalism) [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] , and made personal attacks [96] [97] [98] [99].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Working Thatcher131 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, I think. Thatcher131 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati banned

5.2) Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet; he has "retired." Ekajati (talk · contribs) was banned for 6 months for sockpuppetry and recently asked for her ban to be extended to indefinite and asked that his user and talk pages be blanked [100]. 999 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet but has contested this [101].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Current situation. Thatcher131 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors

6) While the removal of Starwood links by Paul Pigman (talk · contribs), WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs) and Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) was contested by Rosencomet and Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das, no evidence has been offered that these editors were disruptive or violated policy by removing the links. The arbitration committee declines to rule on the appropriateness of such links. Such content decisions are best left to editors who are familiar with the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment While this arbitration is still going on, these editors have been engaging in a campaign of deleting existing links, mentions of Starwood, and text in the Starwood Festival and WinterStar articles. They have used various reasons/excuses, sometimes contradictory. In some cases, they say mentioning an appearance at the event is undue weight, since they appear at other events, though they offer no examples notable or otherwise. In the case of Jay Stevens, they used this reason although no other festival appearance can be found online. When the mention is within a list of public appearances for that professional speaker they delete the entire list, calling it "listcruft", even while leaving lists of radio and television appearances. (IMO, notable appearances for professional authors, lecturers and workshop faciltators are as valid to cite as universities a teacher has taught at, venues a band has played at, or recordings a recording artist has played on, and important credit to their bios. In some cases, a list is the least wieldy way to present them, just as with media appearances, bibliographies and discographies.) They have done so even when there was no link involved. They have severely cut the text of WinterStar Symposium, and suggested it be merged with two other articles. They have also proposed the deletion of all past speakers and entertainers from Starwood Festival except a small number that they say must have their "relevance and notability" demonstrated by their specific contributions to the event, setting a bar that NO OTHER article has. (If an important speaker or performer appears at a venue, their contribution is self-explanatory. Just look at their own article for their notability, and the program of the event for their contribution.)

I feel that these editors, who are extremely involved in the Neo-Pagan movement, and two of them declared founders of Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (a tradition whose article they regularly edit and protect), have a conflict of interest and a special agenda in regards to these articles and those linked to them. They have continued for months following my editing and reverting my work, regardless of the citations I have supplied in accordance with both the mediators' instructions and their own previous statements, constantly coming up with new hurdles. They ignore 3rd-person citations they previously said were the missing component for notability, and ignore lists that eliminate the "undue weight" issue, but do not edit other articles in the same manner. They seem to be targetting my work, and are too eager to eliminate it to even wait for this arbitration to be over. (Note: Most of this has been done by Paul Pigman (talk · contribs) and Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs); very little by WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs).)

Articles recently affected include: Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium, Jay Stevens, Janet Farrar, Gavin Bone, Jeff McBride, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, Ellen Evert Hopman.Rosencomet 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rosencomet didn't provide diffs for the changes I made to the articles he mentioned that I worked on, I'd like to do so. WinterStar Symposium [102], Gavin Bone [103], Jeff McBride [104], Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart [105] (includes diffs of edits by Kathryn NicDhàna as well.), and Oberon Zell-Ravenheart [106] (this diff is Kathryn's edit.) --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Probably a good idea to say this. (I am concerned that Kathryn and Paul have a conflict of interest regarding the dispute over Celtic Neopaganism, but that case has been removed from this case.) Thatcher131 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) While the Arbitration is ongoing, Kathryn has proposed merging the Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium and Association for Consciousness Exploration articles into one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment I believe this is a left-handed attempt to reduce these articles and delete material in an unwarranted fashion, bypassing this arbitration, and forcing those on the other side of this issue to either accept whatever deletions result from this merging or risk being accused of "adding" links, revert warring, or other improper behavior.

It is not common Wikipedia practice to merge festivals together or merge them with the organizations that run them unless the organization does nothing but run that event. Pagan Spirit Gathering is not merged with Circle Sanctuary, Cannabis Cup is not merged with High Times, and Mythic Journeys is not merged with Mythic Imagination Institute. Here are examples of festivals of all sorts from the page for that category that are not so merged. (There are more: I got tired of listing them after reaching the "f"s and just added a few random ones.) If you sample others, discounting those that are not events (festivals like "Beltane") and those run by a city or other government, you'll see my point. The Starwood Festival and the WinterStar Symposium are two distinct events run by an organization that also maintains two facilities in the Cleveland area and produces tapes, CDs, DVDs, and other events, offers local classes, and has other functions. Each has demonstrated it's notability to merit an article, and IMO new rules or policies should not be created just for them.

Rosencomet 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {User:Hanuman Das to be placed on civility parole}

Comment by Arbitrators:

~~Many people "retire" when they are filed arbitration against, and then make a comeback if the arbcom decides not to arbitrate "ghosts".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I'm confused. Is Blnguyen an arbitrator of this issue? He is not one of the 4 names that accepted the position. Rosencomet 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:ARBCOM - Oh, it's common enough - if evidence is presented of bad behaviour, arbcom tends to put up relevant findings and remedies even if the person "retires", so that if they return as themselves, or sockpuppets, they will he under restrictions if appropriate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed by BostonMA ^talk

Oppose, unless it is proven that H.D. is still editing under another username. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even if he IS editing under another name, unless there is evidence of uncivility that has not already been addressed, I think that the fact that much of his behavior was obviously provoked indicates that any treatment of him should be balanced by appropriate treatment of the others involved in the disagreements. Rosencomet 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blnguyen comment has convinced me that this should be persued, even though he has currently left. The viciousness of his contributions shows a user who is likely to cause problems should he return. --Salix alba (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

(To arb bananabucket), is the "disappearing" situation something very usual? Sincerly, it sound me very grave and maybe a policy or guideline should be there to avoid it. Don't you think? --Neigel von Teighen 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

1) Mattisse to be blocked for six months for multiple instances of abuse of sockpuppets. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

No recent factual basis Fred Bauder 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, from Wikipedia:Civility Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress . This motion is likely to cause conflict, and I'd suggest Ekajati withdraws it. --Salix alba (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just oppose. Oppose, but only because I think the length is extreme. I would support a one month block. Also, in response to Salix Alba, I don't see how proposing a remedy in an RFAr is a breach of civility. If it is, then so is the proposed action against Hanuman Das above. Can one only propose remedies against users who are no longer present? This is an RFaR, Ekajati is not posting this on Mattisse's talk page or elsewhere on WP, but in the correct place where such a proposal can and should be made. Again, I think it is too long, but I would support a shorter block. 999 (Talk) 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose punitive blocking. --BostonMA ^talk 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose, simply because I think we should not add a "punishment war" to the now-ceased "revert war". According to Salix Alba's description, Mattisse is guilty of Uncivility due to her "personally targetted behavior". However, she has stopped a matter of months ago, and I have stopped contentious edits on the Starwood article, and a certain amount of cooperation can now be seen on that article between those who were once in conflict. I'd rather see the entire matter dropped and everyone be at peace than aggravate the issue by pushing for sanctions against Mattisse. I hope others will follow suit on both sides. Rosencomet 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- well, I do have a further comment other than just switching to oppose. I think this activity by Mattisse is one of the most seriously disruptive behavior issues, and suggest that if we are going to ignore this, we should ignore all other past bad behavior. Mine excluded, of course. :-) 999 (Talk) 20:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - if Ekajati warrants a two month block for two non-disruptive sockpuppets (and I don't believe that she and Hanuman Das are the same user), then certainly Mattisse deserves a six month block for using 18 sockpuppets, most of them abusively. 999 (Talk) 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand how Wikipedia work in such cases. I think that the block on Ekajati was just plain wrong. If it stands, I totally agree with 999 and would change my weak opposition to a "Support". I think 999 has presented sufficient evidence on the Evidence page of this arbitration to cast doubt on the blocking of Ekajati. Rosencomet 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) Proposal: We agree to edit in cooperation, drop tags, and block no one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I propose that we all get back to editing and end this arbitration. I have not made any contentious edits in over two months. The edits I have made are not controversial, and they have been made only after civil discussion with other editors on talk pages and/or consultation with the mediator from the last mediation. I have shown I can work with others and they with me. I believe that the COI and POV issues only pertain to controversial material, which I am not adding and have no intention of adding. These issues are in the past, along with the sockpuppetry that Pigman calls "old news", and to a great extent were a result of the fact that I had just begun to be an editor and made mistakes. Rather than play "dueling conflicts" with the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism crowd, I thing we should stop the constant battle and mudslinging and get back to editing. I have created what I think are dozens of good articles and positively contributed to dozens more, and would like to continue to do so. I humbly submit that blocking me from doing so would not be a favor to Wikipedia.

1. The two mediations made it clear, in my opinion, that a link to the website of the group that runs Starwood in the reference section should be enough to validate such info as the truth of a speaker's appearance at the event, and there are no external links now from the individual names in the list to that website. Most of the editors in the mediation had no problem with internal links from that page to those of the subject, and many had no problem with the number of them, which has been reduced anyway. Only names of speakers and entertainers notable enough to have their own articles remain, and fewer of those. None of the other links from that page (that is, from somewhere else besides the lists) are contested. (There was never a "google-bomb" issue. The Starwood Festival was the first 20 hits on google when you search that name before I ever heard of Wikipedia.)

2. Furthermore, as to the links FROM other articles, most now have third-party citations instead of links to the ACE website and/or the subjects have produced commercially-available recordings of their lectures or performances and/or are clearly in a class where an appearance at this event is a very real credit and worth a mention. I have put a great deal of effort during these two months providing the 3rd-party sources that others SAID would satisfy notability. Please reference the list here [107]. There is still some more of this to do, and I intend to continue to add citations and references until any reasonable editor will be satisfied, or eliminate links where I can't.

3. The present state of the article itself is pretty good IMO. It is not full of subjective claims or flowery discription, but only factual material. There are a couple of editors who don't like the fact that there are lists at all, but I think I have explained why I consider them an important part of the article. There are plenty of other articles that have much more extensive links than these, including the Lollapalooza article that I was instructed to look for ideas on by one of those on the other side of this issue, and I don't consider these either to be excessive, unreadable or unencyclopedic. The mediators seem to clearly agree that there is no specific standard for the length of such lists or for reasons to include them or link articles to others, and stated that this should be handled with civil discussions on talk pages.

4. This arbitration is now no longer constructive, if it ever was, IMO. This is by NO means a criticism of the arbitrators. The truth is that the mediations were working, and that a real plan for the future of the article was taking form, and I have been working on that solution for two months. This arbitration was not necessary, but Pigman called for it during the mediation. I believe, and I'm sorry if this sounds contentious, that Pigman didn't like the fact that a compromise was taking shape, and wanted an uncompromising decision with draconian blocks and/or other punishments. He has recently called for an indefinite block on me regarding not only this article but EVERY article "related" to it. There has been no move towards compromise from him, no recognition of any progress in the work I have done, and I don't expect there ever will be, nor do I expect him to recognize his own issues in the CRP article and elsewhere. (It seems that he, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki have acted as a tag-team on this, but I can't say for sure.) I believe the best course now is to end this before there are more unpleasant issues warred upon about Mattisse, and editors that are gone, and editors that may or may not have used alternate usernames for NO controversial purposes, and IMO innocents like Jefferson Anderson mistreated, and further undesirable results. I think that those parties interested in cooperation already have taken steps to do so as a result of the mediations, and those who have not never will, and one cannot arbitrate with those who will only see their own side. Rosencomet 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rosencomet

1) Rosencomet be blocked indefinitely from editing Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (A.C.E.), WinterStar Symposium and the articles of any group or person who performed or presented at events sponsored by A.C.E. This block should also include participation on the related talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted with the exception that participation on talk pages is acceptable. Fred Bauder 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose first, as far as I know, even users with conflict of interest are allowed to propose changes on the talk page. Second, Rosencomet is probably more familiar than most with the bios and sources for presenters and performers AND has no inherent conflict of interest except with respect to linking to the Starwood articles. I could only support a block for the three Starwood articles, Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium and Association for Consciousness Exploration. I can't support a block for ANY talk pages or ANY other articles. And I think he should be able to revert vandalism even to the COI articles. 999 (Talk) 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For the past two months I have not made contentious edits to these pages. All my edits have been to improve them, and to satisfy the concerns of those on the other side of this issue. The past mediators of this issue have applauded this, and I have gotten recognition and thanks from Salix Alba and BostonMa, and even Mattisse has said on my talk page "I thank you for every attempt you make to recify the situation." Pigman, who regularly edits Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, has absolutely refused to recognize any of this, or the fact that the contentious behavior ended long ago, or meet those on this side of the issue half-way or ANY way. I find this to be hypocritical, and if anyone thinks this is failure to AGF, well, I don't think he has treated me in any way that was NOT a failure of AGF since before the first mediation. The proposal to ban me from articles of people who even appeared at ACE events, and even from talk pages associated with them, and indefinitely, is clear evidence of his bad will, refusal to be cooperative, and his total denial of any contribution I have made or can make. This is not what an arbitration should be; his attitude has been more suited to an inquisition, with constant accusations against me and absolution of Mattisse, who's 18 sockpuppets he says are "old news". I feel that I have shown a great deal of good intentions and hard work in spite of constant pressure against me, first from harassment, then from Pigman's tag-team on two mediations and this arbitration, while Pigman refuses to even participate in the mediation on CRP (which I have not been a party to in any way), and hides behind this arbitration as his excuse. I came to Wikipedia to use my decades of experience to make a contribution, and he wants to prevent that indefinitely. A ban such as he has proposed will only prevent the further IMPROVEMENT of these articles, and impede my ability to contribute further articles, and I consider it flatly outrageous. Rosencomet 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today (31 Jan 2007) Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again reverted other editors to replace or add additional links to Starwood/Winterstar in the following articles:

Timothy Leary: Another editor removes Starwood material [108]. Rosencomet then reverts, and adds blurb about CD produced and marketed by Rosencomet's organization [109].
Anodea Judith: A new editor with screen name User:Anodea removes Starwood/Winterstar references from article [110]. Rosencomet adds additional links to Starwood and Winterstar, as well as a blurb about a tape featuring himself, red-linking to his AfDed autobiographical Jeff Rosenbaum article. [111].
Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart: adds links to Starwood and Winterstar [112]. --Pigman^talk 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please examine these edits more carefully. I do not consider them controversial.

1. Timothy Leary - A paragraph in the "Trivia" section was deleted entirely, the stated reason being that the article linked from it (NOT the ACE website, and supplied as a citation to a different fact) did not include a quote later in the paragraph. I reverted the deletion, and added the source of the quote. I did NOT add a link; it was already in the text that had been deleted.
2. Anodea Judith - The mention of her appearance at two events WITH third-party citation was deleted, and commercial websites were added, plus two mentions of a new book, one all in caps. I reduced the caps to italicized lower-case, and did NOT replace the event mentions or citation. However, I did add the information as to where two taped lectures in the bibliography had been recorded, and added a panel discussion she had participated in that was also produced. I did NOT add a link to the ACE website or any info as to where they could be obtained. I did it in accord with Salix Alba's previous statement that if a recording was produced of an appearance at Starwood, "that is certainly a notable fact".
3. Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart - Same thing: Davidkevin decided to rewrite the text and delete the mention of her appearance at Starwood. I did NOT revert his work. However, I did add the fact that the cassette and CD recorded lectures she had produced were recorded live at Starwood. No external link, no promotional info.

Are these contentious edits? (I know Pigman doesn't like them, but he doesn't like anything I do or anything associated with Starwood et al.) They are not "additional" links, nor promotion, but just keeping the status quo in what I have been led to believe were acceptable ways. Please note that I also deleted seven names from the Starwood Festival page in the last week, three from WinterStar Symposium, and deleted links from any of them that had articles, such as Lauren Raine and Raq. Rosencomet 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Rosencomet may not add links

2) Rosencomet may not add internal or external links to ACE, the Starwood or Winterstar festivals, or to any organization with which he is affiliated, to any Wikipedia article. He may propose the addition of such links on the talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment If this is in response to Pigman's diffs, please examine them. I do not consider them controversial.

1. Timothy Leary - A paragraph in the "Trivia" section was deleted entirely, the stated reason being that the article linked from it (NOT the ACE website, and supplied as a citation to a different fact) did not include a quote later in the paragraph. I reverted the deletion, and added the source of the quote. I did NOT add a link; it was already in the text that had been deleted.
2. Anodea Judith - The mention of her appearance at two events WITH third-party citation was deleted, and commercial websites were added, plus two mentions of a new book, one all in caps. I reduced the caps to italicized lower-case, and did NOT replace the event mentions or citation. However, I did add the information as to where two taped lectures in the bibliography had been recorded, and added a panel discussion she had participated in that was also produced. I did NOT add a link to the ACE website or any info as to where they could be obtained. I did it in accord with Salix Alba's previous statement that if a recording was produced of an appearance at Starwood, "that is certainly a notable fact".
3. Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart - Same thing: Davidkevin decided to rewrite the text and delete the mention of her appearance at Starwood. I did NOT revert his work. However, I did add the fact that the cassette and CD recorded lectures she had produced were recorded live at Starwood. No external link, no promotional info.

Are these contentious edits? (I know Pigman doesn't like them, but he doesn't like anything I do or anything associated with Starwood et al.) They are not "additional" links, nor promotion, but just keeping the status quo in what I have been led to believe were acceptable ways. Please note that I also deleted seven names from the Starwood Festival page in the last week, three from WinterStar Symposium, and deleted links from any of them that had articles, such as Lauren Raine and Raq. Rosencomet 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, are you a good judge of when a link to your festival is a good, useful and encyclopedic link to another article. Obviously there is some contention about this; it's what the case is about, or at least what started it. Since Fred has indicated condition suppport for banning you from directly editing the festival articles themselves, prohibiting linking is a logical extension of that. Best practice would be to recognize you have a conflict of interest and voluntarily limit yourself to suggesting links on talk pages. (That way, if another editor thought it was important and added it, there would be no controversy.) The arbitrators will have to decide on whether to make it compulsory. Thatcher131 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the proposals above, Rosencomet continues to work on these articles. On the Starwood Festival page, Rosencomet has made 2 additional edits since the above was proposed.[113] He continues to add (and sometimes remove) links to Starwood in other articles, albeit now often padded by adding mentions of other festivals. In my opinion, even the removal of Starwood links is only marginally better than adding links; he is not neutral enough to impartially participate in either. In [114], the audio lecture he added is published and sold by ACE, although it doesn't say so. In [115], he added Starwood and Winterstar links to the article and says this was done "in consultation with Oberon Zell-Ravenheart" [116] which seems undeniably original research. This shows Rosencomet still does not comprehend one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia. Here [117] he posts on the talk page of an editor who has recently made a small change to the Starwood article; Rosencomet is asking the editor to alter or insert specific text into the Starwood article at his behest and direction. Here [118] Rosencomet once again posts on the talk page of another editor who has recently made a change to the Starwood article. I see this behaviour as qualitatively different from proposing changes on the talk page of an article. I feel it once again goes to Rosencomet's issues of WP:OWN. --Pigman^talk 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pigman continues to misrepresent everything I do, and anything anyone else says about what I SHOULD do. I have not increased the number of links to the Starwood Festival page; in fact, I have reduced them considerably. When Davidkevin deleted a couple of links from the article on Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart DURING THIS ARBITRATION ABOUT THEM, and gave Undue Weight as the reason, I created and added a section on public appearances among which were the replacement of the Starwood and WinterStar references, which was perfectly appropriate being among the biggest and most frequent of her appearances. This satisfies Undue Weight, and Davidkevin agreed. (Let me be clear; I have no problem at all with Davidkevin, and interacted with him in a cordial and civil matter to both of our satisfaction.) I wish I could create "public appearance" sections on all the articles of speakers I've edited that don't have them, and move any mention of Starwood and WinterStar there where appropriate to satisfy this issue.

1. As to the edits on the Starwood article, they were both minor and non-controversial: one was to move an addition of a new section from between two lists to after the pair of lists, the other was the capitalization of a word and changing "Pagan" to "Neo-Pagan", something Pigman knows PERFECTLY WELL is more accurate and correct there.

2. Yes, the recorded lecture is produced by ACE. So what? Had I said so, Pigman would say I was advertising for sales purposes. Salix Alba said that if a recording of an appearance was produced that this was certainly a notable fact. I provided no link to anywhere it is available; it's simply a credit in the article about a professional lecturer. Totally appropriate.

3&4. I consulted Oberon to VERIFY the facts of the list I had assembled to prevent the posting of false data. He told me that one of the items on the list was, in fact, incorrect; he appeared but she had to cancel, something not evident in the material I had access to, so that one wasn't included. Not original research; I was not at this appearance. Just fact checking.

5&6. I did NOT ask the editor to do something for me, I SUGGESTED a couple of changes, and specifically said "if you agree with them". Discussing changes on talk pages is what I thought I was supposed to do if I thought any should be made. This is ridiculous, and frankly, I think Pigman has been hostile to me as an editor for several months. He talks about his and other people's choices on his and their talk pages all the time. In fact, I DID begin this conversation on the article's discussion page; Pigman, on the other hand, did NOT comment on that page but went right to Davidkevin's talk page (before I ever did) to influence him against me.

If one reads the text associated with the edits I've been doing for the past two months instead of just accepting Pigman's formula of Edits + Rosencomet = BAD, you'll see that I have not been making contentious edits, I have been working to correct and/or satisfy issues such as undue weight in my past editing, I have been discussing my edits and any changes I think would be appropriate in a civil fashion with the editors concerned on talk pages, I have been contributing to articles I created and/or improved with non-controversial data, and I have sometimes consulted past mediators about my action. I have been trying diligently to improve my work, something Pigman has not conceded in any instance. Rosencomet 16:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed in response to Pigman's diffs. Thatcher131 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that Rosencomet has an inherent conflict of interest. Editing with a conflict of interest is discouraged, and when it has caused problems in the past, such editing may be proactively prohibited. It is simply not encyclopedic to list every single event an artist has ever participated in, and Rosencomet clearly is not in a position to judge whether Starwood represents a notable moment in an artist's career. He may propose on talk pages and let other editors decide whether the link is appropriate. The alternative is to place Rosencomet on probation, which would restrict his editing even more and make him more susceptible to enforcement. I've seen problems with probation, and we don't want to create a situation where someone can run to an admin after every one of Rosencomet's edits. Simpler, less restrictive, and less open to abuse to simply ban him from making the links. Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism has 50 declared members, enough to get a fair hearing. Thatcher131 03:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati banned

3) Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), under any user name, is banned until July 29, 2007, the duration of the orginal ban for sockpuppetry [119]. The indefinite bans on the accounts 999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as sockpuppets are confirmed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 02:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati placed on probation

4) Ekajati is placed on standard probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles for disruptive editing for an appropriate period of time. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ekajati/999/Hanuman appear knowledgable about neo-paganism topics. Rather than a broad topical ban it seems that probation would be appropriate. Thatcher131 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse placed on probation

5) Mattisse is placed on standard probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles for disruptive editing for an appropriate period of time. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Note that Mattisse has expressed in e-mail to me that she wishes to leave Wikipedia. Thatcher131 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert parole

6) Rosencomet, Mattisse and Ekajati are placed on revert parole. They may not revert any article more than once per day or twice per week, and must discuss all reversions on the talk page. Each editor may be banned for up to 24 hours per violation, with the maximum ban length extending to 5 days in case of repeated violations. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm going the other way on this. I think these folks have pretty much learned their lesson. Fred Bauder 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment I am afraid that this will be taken as a license for those who on the other side of this issue to delete everything I have contributed to Wikipedia wholesale. IMO, they have treated me in a most unfriendly manner for months, while protecting anyone who did even outrageous edits and behaviors as long as they were done on articles I showed an interest in. They have not recognized any positive contribution on my part. They work together as one, and share an agenda.

Also, a parole is generally for a specific time period. What is the term of this one?Rosencomet 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am concerned that the only thing that has made Rosencoment slow down on these articles is the recent discussion of clear consequences (and the fact that people have largely been leaving the links alone until a resolution was reached here). All previous community consensus on RfCs and Mediations advised him to leave the articles alone and he ignored community consensus. While, to the best of my knowledge, Matisse has avoided all the linked articles, and Ekajti has been blocked (so unable to work on them), Rosencomet has continued to add mentions and links to Starwood, as recently as today. Repectfully, I am concerned that if clear consequences are not spelled out for Rosencomet that we will find ourselves right back here dealing with all this again. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am a bit concerned. I have tried to address the issue of POV and Undue Weight by, as I have said several times in this arbitration, introducing "Public appearance venues" lists to some of the articles about professional speakers and workshop facilitators I have previously edited. Kathryn has first been deleting the mention of venues she doesn't want there, then has switched to removing the lists entirely. This did not result from a revert war or a discussion of the value of these lists on the talk page; she just deleted them.

In my opinion, a list of public appearances is just as important and notable to such an individual as a bibliography to an author or a discography to a recording artist. Certainly it need not include every appearance, but the more notable venues at which they appear, and those that engage them, tells you a lot about the subject of the article. Furthermore, it would be too unweildy to write text incorporating this data, just as it would be to write text mentioning all the books, publishers, publication dates and ISBN numbers of an author. A bulleted list seems to be the most encyclopedic way to present this data, IMO.

I think it is a mistake to ignore the extent to which all this trouble has been contributed to by the over-zealous tracking of everything I have done and deletion on any possible basis, and the ignoring of any attempt I've made to address the issues those doing it claim as their motivation. I have more than met those critical of my work halfway, but as Mediator Geo said a while back, there are some people who want this material taken down at all costs. Satisfying POV, Undue Weight, and whatever else will not suffice for them, it seems; I fear they'll come up with other reasons to dog my heels and revert my work until I stop editing at all, at least in the fields we share and that they are protective of. If we "find ourselves right back here", IMO this will be why. To them, I am afraid, this is not about links or policies, it's about stopping me from being an editor there at all.

With all due respect, I think this arbitration must address their behavior as well. Not in a punative fashion, but just an instruction to them about their over-zealous tracking and reverting when my editing is not a violation of policy. Rosencomet 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respectfully point out Rosencomet is mistaken in when he says Kathryn did not post to the talk pages about these changes. Kathryn did indeed post on the talk pages of these articles with her rationale and reasons when she deleted the lists. [120] [121] I've removed a couple of lists as well and also posted to the talk pages. [122] [123] Unless we should have notified Rosencomet directly about these changes, I think we've acted within normal editing behaviour. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Rosencomet may be blocked

1) If Rosencomet violates either the topical ban or the ban on adding links, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours per violation, increasing to a maximum of 5 days per violation after the fifth violaiton. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment I find this confusing. I'm not sure what you mean by the "topical ban". If you mean the proposal by Fred Bauer that I be forbidden to edit any article at all in any way if the person has ever been a speaker or entertainer at an ACE event, I truly believe that's going too far. It would prevent me from making perfectly non-contentious edits (like adding to bibliographies) on most of the people who are in my field of expertise: spiritual leaders, authors and lecturers, and limit my ability to work on world music and other entertainers. I don't think that is called for.Rosencomet 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. The enforcement provisions for the proposed probations and paroles is already noted above. Thatcher131 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to ban is always accompanied by an enforcement proposal in case the ban is violated. In this case, Fred ultimately went in a much more lenient direction. Thatcher131 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Sockpuppetry: Hanuman Das

A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is alleged to be a sockpuppet of Ekajati (see here

All blocked indef except Ekajati (2 months)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted Thatcher131 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[124]
see here, about halfway down [125]

See this Thatcher. I got Dmcdevit to check them last week after I dug up his IP. That shows pretty clearly that they are all the same, and you can check the overlap for yourself. See how 999 fits cleanly into the baton changes as well. So there is a lot of vote stacking and block evasion as well.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also, traceroute on the two IP's used by Hanuman and the one claimed by A Rama show the same server one hop above. Thatcher131 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation: Rosencomet

Rosencomet has inappropriately added links to a site he controls.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Strongly disagree I have said time and time again, I have no control over the ACE website, nor ANY wensite. I have never inputted directly to a website in my life, except this one and Ebay, and I have never been the webmaster of ACE. Also, all links I have placed to external websites (whether ACE's or any others) were for the intention of satisfying demands for citations of facts, or an appropriate one listed under "External links", or a reference. I may have made a mistake at times, but I never intentionally placed anything inappropriate. Rosencomet 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Working on this Thatcher131 02:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation: Harassment

Editors who removed Starwood links were harassed and wikistalked by Ekajati, 999, Hanuman Das.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree I don't think they were either harassing or "wikistalking". There is sufficient reason to believe that any input on other articles being edited by those removing these links was due to common interests, not wikistalking, and I don't think any of it amounted to harassment (though civility may well have been strained on ALL sides at times). I feel particularly strongly about this re: Jefferson Anderson. Rosencomet 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Working on this. Thatcher131 02:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation: Mattisse

Mattisse removed internal links to Starwood, then added "citation needed" tags to articles edited by Rosencomet in an abusive fashion, including the alleged use of sockpuppets.

Sockpuppets [126]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse

Xampt (talk · contribs) O

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Working on this. Thatcher131 02:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation: Timmy12

The pro-Starwood parties allege that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse. Timmy12's user page states that he has been harassed by Hanuman Das and others; he has left Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Working. Thatcher131 02:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see here, about halfway down [127]

Edit warring

Patricia Monaghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd link to note that the anti-Starwood parties have mischaracterized some of this edit warring. Start here and step forward. Mattisse tags the article, then a couple editors de-advert it, then Mattisse puts fact tags on every sentence, then I remove the tags, as it has been deadverted and now has some citations. Later, I add a reference, Rosencomet supplies a requested citation, and then does some more work on the article. User Calton then removes Starwood, H.D. puts it back, Calton removes it, H.D. restores it but then converts the references to footnotes and otherwise makes improvements to the article; BostonMA then reverts those improvements, H.D. reverts with a note that improvements had been made, but rather than just remove the reference to Starwood, BostonMA reverts again, losing the improvements to the article. It is this sort of behavior of removing other improvements that seemed to escalate the edit war. Step through and see. 999 (Talk) 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 999 regarding the presentation of the edit warring above. In particular, since it pertains to my own role in this affair, I agree that my failure to be more selective in my removal of Starwood links was a mistake and if I were able to go back in time, I would do differently. Could 999 clarify what is meant by the phrase "the anti-Starwood parties have mischaracterized some of this edit warring"? Examples of such mischaracterization would be helpful. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 999 and BostonMa. I have tried to create articles on notable people and improve both those and articles others created (like Starwood Festival itself). I have resisted attempts to revert my work when I thought the reasons were unfounded, and tried to provide additional material when I was told what was needed. (I have been learning as I did this, having only begun in late August.) Rosencomet 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Notes for later. Thatcher131 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation: Mattisse

Mattisse created fake articles using sockpuppets, adding the links from those pages and individuals to pad the number of them (making the "problem seem worse thereby), then atributed those creations to the "Starwood folks".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Mattisse created the article for Ann Hill (or sometimes "Anne Hill") stating incorrectly that she was a "frequent speaker at Starwood", and added the name to the lists. In one instance, she substituted it for the name of a real speaker at Starwood. On another article, she changed "Ann Rice" to "Ann Hill". This name was then inserted into the Starwood article by Mattisse sockpuppet User:Gjeatman on Aug. 30th. It is deleted, but reinserted on Sept 4th by yet another sock, User:BlackHak.

2. Mattisse created an article for a book by Stewart Farrar, "What Witches Do" using the sockpuppet User:LiftWaffen, and linked it to the Starwood and ACE articles, with the phrase "The author has been a featured speaker at the Starwood Festival presented by the Association for Consciousness Exploration LLC (ACE) as an expert in neo-paganism." In a later discussion on a talk page, she described the "Starwood people" as having liked the article and therefor kept it, with nothing to support this. When Rosencomet pointed out that this was not true, he was told not to post on her talk page any more.

3. Mattisse created the "Musart" article (linked to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium) on August 25th by User:Flinders (a sock of Mattisse), claiming that Musart was a Neo-Pagan event co-sponsored by ACE, and including a list of speakers who appear at it, all linked to their articles. None of this was true. Then she described the article on Pigman's talk page as something she "just ran across" that he should look into. (The next day, Flinders creates unecessary links on many words like "day", "night", "adult", "class", etc.)

4. Andrew Cohen, mentioned below by Matisse on User:SalixAlba's page as a "Starwood Speaker", has never appeared at Starwood nor has his page been linked to the Starwood page.

Please see here [128] for more complete data, and for posted warnings on BostonMa, Salix Alba, & Pigman's talk pages warning about these articles and attributing them to me and "the usual Starwood Festival crowd". Rosencomet 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry: Hanuman Das, Part II

Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are:

Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found through CheckUser to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account:

Baba Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chai Walla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Adityanath for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [129]. If Chai Walla is found to be a sock of Ekajati, this means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.

However there is also this: [130]. Hanuman Das, Baba Louis, and Chai Walla claim the shared IP found in CheckUser was because they were all using the same laptop on a trip together.[131]. It's also interesting that User:Chai Walla was inactive from August 14, 2006 through January 25, 2007 and then suddenly spikes in the last few days.[132] This seems remarkably coincidental. I'm not sure this evidence is definitive but certainly suggestive enough for investigation. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Of this list, only Hanuman Das and Ekajati have ever edited on the Starwood Festival article. Rosencomet 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The Parties Involved To Date

It seems to me at this time that the parties involved break into three groups. (It's hard to believe that so much time and "virtual ink" has been expended by so few people, while the rest of Wikifolk go on and do their thing.) The following text is, of course, my view of the parties presently involved.

One is composed of those who are absolutely opposed to the folks contributing to the Starwood Festival article and the links to and from it, and would like to see action taken against them and major reductions in the material in the article. Though they have said that such support as third-party sources and administrators' assertions that one thing or another is either valid or should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the truth seems to be that they really aren't impressed by any of that when offered, IMO. This group consists of Pigman, Weniwidiwiki, and Kathryn NicDhàna, all of whom are part of the WikiProject NeoPaganism and heavily involved in their own NeoPagan organizations, and at least two of them seem to be at least as closely related to articles they are editing (such as Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism) as they have accused me of being, although they have declined to participate in a mediation about them. (Of the three, Weniwediwiki has recently made positive contributions to the appearance of the article and engaged in real discourse about some particulars before reaching content editing conclusions.) There are two others who have declared themselves to have withdrawn from the issue: Timmy12 (who seems to have left Wikipedia entirely) and Mattisse. Mattisse clearly has been the primary cause both of a revert war and the loading of many external links onto the article (most of which has been reversed) through the flagrant use of multiple sockpuppets, and continues to involve herself behind the scenes. All together, they have contributed little material to the article, just contested others' contributions.

Another is composed of myself (Rosencomet), 999, Ekajati, Wjhonson, and Septegram. The first three have put a great deal of effort into adding to and improving the article, including a significant amount of material specifically to address the criticisms of the others. They have added 3rd-party sources, researched material, added references, supported their positions, and recently reduced the number of contested names to just those notable enough to have articles of their own, and removed some internal links TO the page in other articles. They have eliminated most of the external links originally created to satisfy demands for citations on the assurance by administrators that they were not required, and generally worked to make it the best article on a Neo-Pagan festival in Wikipedia IMO. There is one editor who has withdrawn completely from Wikipedia and this issue, Hanuman Das, who initially contributed a great deal of work helping improve the article. Of this group, I seem to be the only one involved in NeoPagan organizing, although I did not create this article.

A third group is composed of BostonMa and Salix Alba. Both have taken a middle road and supported people on each side at different times according to their own judgement. Both have complimented those who tried to find compromises or fulfill the requests of the other side. Both have made and/or offered to make contributions to the article, and both have made statements that they believed that progress has been made and would like to see a constructive conclusion to the issue. While both have at times criticized the input of the second group, they have also helped add citations and reverted vandalism, and have not been reluctant to support a point they agreed on regardless of which group made it. Neither seem to be involved in NeoPagan organizing.

Finally, there are several outside editors who have weighed in on the issue. Of them, a few have been vocal supporters of one side or the other; though there are some who visited once and expressed an opinion based on, perhaps, early or incomplete looks at the material and never revisited the issue. They include Guy and 67.117.130.181 in support of group one, and Jefferson Anderson, Frater Xyzzy, and Ars Scriptor (who left Wikipedia) in support of group two, with Blnguyen adding accusations of harassment by 999 and Ekajati (but no comment on the article itself), and Jkelly and BenBurch who believe the arbitration was unnecessary.

Three administrators who were involved in mediations have weighed in occasionally: Che Nuevara, Samir and Geo. My understanding is that the first two have helped clear up certain issues such as whether a citation from the ACE website is valid and/or needed simply to support that an appearance took place. Both seem to feel that notability should be decided on a case to case basis, that the criteria for whether an appearance is notable to the event as opposed to the subject may differ, and that the point of COI seems to be moot now since there have been no contentious edits for a matter of months. Che has said the same about the issue of Mattisse's sockpuppetry. Che also stated that he thought edits I proposed doing reducing the contested links and/or providing 3rd-party citations would be a positive move and not a violation of the ongoing arbitration. Geo seems to think the material should be retained unless someone can show that it does not conform to Wiki policies, regardless of the fact that there are a group of editors who, in his words, "want this info out of Wikipedia at all costs".Rosencomet 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by someone who has participated many times in arbitrations, much more than the most of the parties ; )

I'll just expose some of my experience on this, hoping that the parties can improve their behaivor in here befor it's too late for them.

The most problem here is confussion. I highly recommend you (as I always do with my advocees) to remain focused on what you expect to get from the arbitration. In arbitrations, you find some that seek revenge, some consensus, others want to defend themselves, others to attack archenemies... but mostly they do know what they do and try to get it. And arbitrators will be very sure on what to do because the scenario will be almost clear as water. But, this arbitration's parties don't know what they want and/or are too concentrated in very minor details instead of focusing on what they expect (if they really expect something) from this.

Stay focused on your requests; it will be better for all. Arbitrators rule according to what they understand from the case (they're humans, not gods), and in such a mess, it is highly probable that you will be misunderstood and that you will be hit by the boomerang you throwed (receive the ban you wanted for your adversary, for example...)

It is just a comment to help you all. --Neigel von Teighen 09:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I get it. I thought this arbitration was opened over the Starwood links. Rereading Paul's statement, this is supposed to be about the links, right? But then when you look at the evidence presented there is twice as much about harassment, etc. Shouldn't we be discussing and deciding on the links here? We've all been lead down the garden path with this other stuff. I'm striking my support for anything addressing behavior and withdrawing anything I've proposed with respect to it. Let's get back to the issue. 999 (Talk) 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your constructive input. I will say clearly that I believe that the article as it stands now is not a problem. It has been trimmed & reorganized, and many of the concerns of those objecting to the content have been addressed: most of the external links placed as a response to Mattisse's actions have been removed, all speakers and entertainers in the lists that are not notable enough to have their own articles (except two directors of the organization running the event) have been removed, the lists are now in more readable columns (thanks to Weniwediwiki), and some of the articles previously linked to this one no longer are. MANY 3rd-party sources to support notability have been provided on those linked articles, which those in opposition previously said would satisfy them, and many references have been added. No more contentions edits have been made for months. But that group has still not recognized any of these positive steps, or offered to meet their opponents half-way, or indicated specific additional edits they believe necessary on a case-by-case basis as was recommended in the mediation.

I would like to see this battle end, and all this stuff about harassment and attacks (none of which I have been a party to) end as well. I would like to see us all go back to real contributions. I would like to see the opponents of this article cease their attempts to chop away at it, drop the recent "laundry list" tags they placed on it during this arbitration, and simply accept the present state of the article as a compromise, since this side has actually worked to satisfy them while they have neither done the same nor recognized those efforts, nor contributed much of anything but criticism to the article from it's inception.

If they stopped these actions (or promoting others to do the same), I would agree to avoid contentious edits and try to work through the talk pages with the help of others if I think additional relevant material I have access to should result in additions or deletions, as I did with both Weniwediwiki and BostonMa recently. This does not mean I will not revert deletions of existing material if there is no valid reason to delete it. (One exception to this: I'll still delete obvious vandalism, like unsupported insertions of associations with "Satanists".) I will not add mentions of appearances at Starwood on other articles without a third-party citation or one from the subject's website. I will also, over time (and hopefully with help), try to create lists of "public appearances" on some of these other pages in which the Starwood appearance would be included rather than just mentioning this appearance, to address issues of Undue Weight (as exist on Patricia Monaghan and Oberon Zell-Ravenheart). This last is contingent on my being able to find verifiable sources for such lists.

I would also be willing to work with them if they feel SPECIFIC names don't belong in the list on a case-by-case basis on the talk page, if they will agree not to delete first and then accuse those objecting of a revert war. I would consider it, however, a show of bad faith if they simply contest most or all of them regardless of how supported, or use as an arguement such non-policy criteria as "there's just too many" or "this is excessive" or "four or five names are enough" or other expressions showing their preferences rather than any policy violations, or encourage others to delete material for them. I would ask them to respect that other editors have the right to include information as long as it is accurate, supported, notable and relevant, even if they would rather not see it there for their own reasons.

I probably won't get everything I want, but I HAVE made real efforts to satisfy the critics, and I'm willing to do more. What I really want is not to have to continue wasting time that could be used to create other articles and research & improve existing ones. But I am just as reluctant to allow my work to be destroyed as they would be if I treated them or their work on articles they obviously care about, like Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, the way they have done here. I have never reciprocated this harsh treatment, and I would like to see it end. Rosencomet 19:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-Starwood" vs. "Anti-Starwood"

I don't know where I should comment on this us vs. them usage, but I would like to clarify, that just because I view the pervasive linking of the event by the promoters as unethical, does not mean I am "Anti-Starwood". I have friends who have performed and appeared at Starwood, some of them *numerous* times and I have discussed this at length with them. They also feel using wikipedia to promote a commercial event is inappropriate. I have no problem with Starwood, ACE or any of the speakers or promoters, and am most definitely not "Anti-Starwood". Presumably, the other individuals who have removed links or voiced their concerns about the conflict of interest and spam issues do not see this dispute in such polarized binary us vs. them terms, either. - WeniWidiWiki 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also have a number of friends who attend Starwood - as presenters, performers, and regular attendees. I have acquaintances who help or have helped organize the festival and/or promote it. And I have a number of friends and even more acquaintances who regularly perform and present workshops at most of the festivals that make up the "Pagan circuit" (as have I in the past). Though I have never attended any ACE events, groups I belonged to in the eighties and nineties were twice hired to perform/present at Starwood, and I would have attended had scheduling conflicts not interfered. As someone with an over 23-year history with the Pagan community, it has been particularly surreal to be accused of being somehow "Anti-Pagan" for doing my best to defend what I see as Wikipedia policies. Though many of us involved in this Arbitration are Pagans of various sorts, that is not the issue; here, we are Wikipedians first. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as well. I remain puzzled by the view that I am "anti" Starwood because I am interested in upholding the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Before this brouhaha, I had no bias against Starwood. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that there hasn't been an anti-Starwood bias in the editing & deleting pattern of the tag-team made up of the above three editors and Mattisse. Over and over I have explained that Starwood and ACE are not-for-profit and that neither I nor anyone else working on them are paid, yet here again Weniwediwiki insists on calling it a commercial event, and accusing me of promoting it, in violation of AGF. I don't see similar accusations from them on pages such as those they have pointed to for me to "get ideas from" like the Lolopalooza article, nor do they delete the mention of Pagan Spirit Gathering or other events on the very same pages they fight against the Starwood mention, in spite of the fact that Starwood is more notable (in terms of attendence, how well known the speakers and entertainers featured are, how well known the event itself is, how many different communities it serves, and other factors). I think that it is possible their involvement in other Pagan organizations and events may make them feel competitive on this issue, and this may contribute to the fervor with which they pursure the cause of reducing the article as much as possible. It is not just the lists; they have challenged a lot of the other descriptive material regardless of whether it was factual or identical to language in other articles. They have turned guidelines into regulations, and encouraged others to view me as a menace to Wikipedia with malicious intent.

In most of the deletions by Pigman, he adds the comment "deleting Starwood linkspam" or "gratuitous Linkspam" or some other derogatory term, and all the editors above have used similar language. They also regularly describe those disagreeing with them as "attacking" and the expression of a differing opinion as "trying to wear them our with an endurance contest". Pigman, in particular, called for this arbitration DURING a mediation, even when several editors told him that they thought this was improper and an attempt to circumvent a mediation that was working. They have refused to recognize a single thing I have done to improve matters or to satisfy their stated desire to include 3rd-party citations and delete some of the names and links, nor will they acknowledge the fact that I have not made contentious edits in over two months. They still use language like "Rosencomet continues to do such-and-such". Pigman has called for an INDEFINITE block on me re not only the article this arbitration is about, but "all related articles", and his past statements seem to indicate that he means any article that even mentions an appearance at Starwood or any ACE event (which he calls my "editing universe", or "the Starwood group of articles"). These other editors seem to agree. He has also accused me of ignoring the results of the mediation, when I acted only after CONSULTING the mediator, and he has referred to a "conclusion to the mediation" when there was none, since he circumvented it. Weniwediwiki, who regularly mis-characterizes my statements, has put tags on the Starwood and Winterstar articles DURING this arbitration declaring the lists on them to be unencyclopedic, in effect inviting others not involved in it to chop away at them right away, even though this arbitration has made no decision as to whether the shorter lists with the almost-complete supply of 3rd-party citation ARE unencyclopedic.

I think the pattern of behavior has been clear, that these editors (in the words of one of the past mediators, Geo) "want this material taken down at any cost". No progress is recognized, no compromise is considered. Perhaps, however, "anti-Rosencomet" would have been more accurate. Rosencomet 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:

Starwood charges money to attend. http://www.rosencomet.com/ sells merchandise. Therefore it is a commercial enterprise.
The call for an Arbitration was appropriate, especially considering all of the sock puppetry issues which have surfaced. Anyone is welcome to go recount the consensus votes at Talk:Starwood_Festival/mediation. Even before subtracting socks, overwhelming consensus was against the insertion of links which promote Starwood. Consensus was reached, which some editors refused to acknowledge. CheNuevara's decision:

The situation seems, to me, to be as follows: Rosencomet, it would appear that general consensus is that most of these names and links do not belong, and only those of exceptional note should be included. The burden of proof on Wikipedia lies with inclusion, not exclusion. Policy is interpreted through consensus, and, despite your arguments, however well-formed, the vast majority of editors seem to continue to disagree with you. If the face of consensus against you, in order to continue to include these facts, you need to provide evidence that there there is indeed not consensus against your point. If you can do that, the issue can be discussed further, but given the apparent consensus in the opposite direction, the wiki-process seems to have resolved itself here.

I will continue to withhold my opinion on the matter, but this is my objective summation of the sum total of opinion expressed above. I realize there will be multiple people who are unhappy with what I am saying here, but remember, the standard for Wikipedia is not unanimity, but rather broad consensus. - Che Nuevara 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) diff[reply]

The mediator clearly stated that the "process was resolved". If this issue was put to a vote again, the finding would probably be even more overwhelming against the promotion of Starwood material.

Having to argue, and have consensus reaching debates on every single modification to these entries is not constructive and is a waste of time which clearly defined policies and enforcement will hopefully end.
Unnecessary verbosity, wiki-lawyering and hyperbole have detracted from meaningful discussion and have bogged down time and resources which could be used elsewhere. Obviously a promoter of an event has more of a vested interest in these topics than an average wikipedia editor, and only the most tenacious would not just acquiesce to the constant atmosphere of pressure on those who disagree about the promotion of these events. - WeniWidiWiki 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "Commercial enterprise" Lots of charitable organizations charge to be members. Lots of charitable events charge admission. Whether they are "commercial enterprises" depends on whether anyone makes money for themselves off them; in fact, they are not commercial enterprises even if employees are paid salaries, as long as all profit (over operating expenses, including salaries) goes into programming and/or to a charity. An educational organization that raises funds by ANY means (including a charge for admission to activities) and disseminates information is not a commercial enterprise as long as it does not show a profit. In this case, ACE does NOT pay any employees, ALL money taken in goes to programming, and it does not show a profit. It does, however, pay sales tax on whatever it sells retail, and does not solicit donations. Starwood costs tens of thousands of dollars to run; if that makes it a commercial enterprise, so are most charitable events and organizations from the Muscular Dystrophy Association to the Red Cross to the Catholic Church. (Is Pagan Spirit Gathering a commercial enterprise? How about the fundraiser for my synagogue?)

Not that it should matter, since there are MANY articles in Wikipedia about commercial enterprises, like IBM, XEROX, Starbucks, LucasArts, Time Warner, Columbia Pictures, Marvel Comics, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and events like Lollapalooza, etc. Rosencomet 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 964: / Line 964: @@
 ===Template===
+) While the Arbitration is ongoing, Kathryn has proposed merging the Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium and Association for Consciousness Exploration articles into one.
-) {text of proposed finding of fact}
 :'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
 ::
+:'''Comment''' I believe this is a left-handed attempt to reduce these articles and delete material in an unwarranted fashion, bypassing this arbitration, and forcing those on the other side of this issue to either accept whatever deletions result from this merging or risk being accused of "adding" links, revert warring, or other improper behavior.
-:'''Comment by parties:'''
+: It is not common Wikipedia practice to merge festivals together or merge them with the organizations that run them unless the organization does nothing but run that event. [[Pagan Spirit Gathering]] is not merged with [[Circle Sanctuary]], [[Cannabis Cup]] is not merged with [[High Times]], and [[Mythic Journeys]] is not merged with [[Mythic Imagination Institute]]. Here are examples of festivals of all sorts from the page for that category that are not so merged. (There are more: I got tired of listing them after reaching the "f"s and just added a few random ones.) If you sample others, discounting those that are not events (festivals like "Beltane") and those run by a city or other government, you'll see my point. The Starwood Festival and the WinterStar Symposium are two distinct events run by an organization that also maintains two facilities in the Cleveland area and produces tapes, CDs, DVDs, and other events, offers local classes, and has other functions. Each has demonstrated it's notability to merit an article, and IMO new rules or policies should not be created just for them.
+*[[Africa Day]] - [[Organisation of African Unity]]
+*[[Artimation]] - [[Illinois Institute of Art - Chicago]]
+*[[Beltane Fire Festival]] - [[Beltane Fire Society]]
+*[[Cannabis Cup]] - [[High Times]]
+*[[Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival]] (IAF) - [[EMAP plc]]
+*[[Cardiff Design Festival]] - [[University of Wales Institute, Cardiff]]
+*[[Carpe Diem]] - [[Indian Institute of Management Calcutta]]
+*[[Dark City]] - [[Edinburgh University Students' Association]]
+*[[Day on the Green]] - [[Bill Graham Presents]]
+*[[Delphic Games]] - [[International Delphic Council]]
+*[[Edgefest]] - [[CFNY-FM]]
+*[[FM4 Frequency Festival]] -  [[FM4]]
+*[[Festival da Canção]] - [[RTP]]
+*The [[Machynlleth Festival]] - [[The Tabernacle]]
+*[[Mythic Journeys]] - [[Mythic Imagination Institute]]
+*[[Newbury Comedy Festival]] - [[Vodafone]]
+*[[1987 IUSY Festival]] - [[International Union of Socialist Youth]]
+*[[Pagan Spirit Gathering]] - [[Circle Sanctuary]]
+*[[Sun Fun Festival]] -  [[Hawaiian Tropic]]
+*[[Terrastock]] - [[Ptolemaic Terrascope]]
+*[[X-Day]] - [[Church of the SubGenius]]
+[[User:Rosencomet|Rosencomet]] 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 ::