Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Starwood Festival
State: Open
Requested By: Salix alba
Other Parties: Timmy12,Hanuman Das,Rosencomet
Mediated By: CheNuevara (talk • contribs)
Comments: About to start new mediation process

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-11-03 Starwood Festival

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator and refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Salix alba (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Starwood Festival and other pages linking to it, in particular
Silver RavenWolf
Who's involved?
User:Mattisse
User:Timmy12
User:Hanuman Das
User:Rosencomet
User:Salix alba
User:Calton
User:BostonMA
User:Ekajati
User:999
What's going on?
A long story User:Rosencomet, who is connected to the event, added a lot of information to the Starwood Festival page. He also created (or expanded) pages on a large number of performers who have performed at the event[1]. On each of these pages there is an internal link to Starwood and also exteranl links to the pages to the Starwood site.[2]
Disputes have centered on two main points
  1. Citations on the Starwood Festival (the start of the dispute but largely solved now)
  2. Whether it is appropriate to include reference to starwood on pages liking to it.
The user conduct about this have been poor. Various sockpuppets and false sockpuppet aligations (now largely resolved). Numerious instances of failing to be WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BITE.
Currently User:Timmy12 and User:Hanuman Das are at odds over whether its appropriate to include critical material of Silver RavenWolf. Neither user is happy for the other to add material on their talk pages, and have frequently removed posts from the other.
Actually, I am the one who objects to the inclusion of inadequately sourced criticism in an article about a living person. I have no objection to adequately sourced material. WP:LIVING requires to err on the safe side if the sources are dubious ones. The "criticisms" which are being added are from blogs, self-published websites, and amateur book reviews. These are not up to the standards required by WP:V, WP:RS, WP:LIVING or WP:EL. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why these issues have been lumped together, but as to the Silver Ravenwolf criticisms (which I have not, as yet, weighed in on) I don't see any reason to include "negative things people have said about the subject" in an encyclopedia article. The sources are not noteworthy, as Ekajati has pointed out, and it would be a terrible precedent to include a section of random detractors' statements in authors' articles. Where would it end?Rosencomet 16:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


What would you like to change about that?
The discussions follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
Open discussion fine by me.

[edit] Mediator response

I'll mediate. I believe that it is acceptable to add critical material to balance an article. Geo. 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. This is inadequately sourced material and the article is about a living person. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please define why it is improperly sourced. Geo. 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If the festival's sponsor owns the site then wouldn't it be POV? Geo. 16:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the mediator, Geo.plrd. Please feel free to ask a mediator from the list on WP:MEDCAB or, alternatively, suggest someone else who you feel may be qualified to help with the dispute. I apologize for the lack of mediator attention. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Matisse, could you summarize the issues in this case. Geo. 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Summary:

In general the issue is User:Rosencomet and his suite of articles that promote his festivals:

User:999, User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati have been protecting him and reverting pages back to spam. User:Timmy12 removed search engine links within these articles [3] and seems to have been driven away from Wikipedia by the harassment and many complaints filed against him by the above users.

Many of us are concerned with links in the articles:Check Rosencomet linkspamming.

Also, all the internal linking Check on performers at Starwood Festival.

This mediation was opened. Almost immediately Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse was filed. If you look through that you will get an idea of the scope of articles involved and the amount of energy they are willing to put into harassing someone.

We were hoping an out-in-the-open discussion of what constitutes following WP:V, WP:RS etc. as well how to decide issues of notability. Now it is WP:OWN and WP:STALK as people who attempt to do anything to these articles get harassed. I saw a comment by User:Kathryn NicDhàna somewhere that summed it up as she is starting to experience it over a current AFD on one of the protected articles.

BostonMA is better at explaining than I am. Please ask him. I am still intimidated by all the harassment and discouraged. Hope this is what you meant by a summary. If you wanted something else, let me know and I will try to do better. Mattisse(talk) 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related link

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse --Ideogram 13:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

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)
I don't really understand this. Is this some new requirement just on links to the Starwood Festival?
Please reread this comment on your talk page. --BostonMA talk 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see other pages adding "third party sources" to all their citations. This festival is considered the premier event of it's type, it has had a 26-year unbroken run, has numerous references listed in its article (including write-ups by notable journalists like Paul Krassner), has been mentioned in several books, has featured several dozens of speakers and entertainers that are notable enough to have their own articles, and many have had multiple appearances over decades. It seems that if the subject of the article is less known than Starwood I'm told that the subject must not be notable enough to have an article, and if they're MORE notable than Starwood I'm told that their participation in the event is not notable. If I don't cite the source, it gets a tag for lacking citation, and if I do it gets called linkspam, and if I establish multiple appearances (which might support notability) I'm told there are too many links to the same page... and if I just provide one link to a search engine page on which one can find a full list of appearances, it's called a "disguised link". I can't seem to please those who want to delete these citations and this info, and I wonder if it really has anything to do with "notability".
Starwood is a unique event, which is both the premier festival in the American Neo-Pagan community and one of the premier events in the Consciousness Exploration movement today. No other event I know of brings together such a wide array of interest groups expressly to promote interaction between them, rather than just as a side-effect of shared interests. It's presentors consider participation a legitimate credit, and a simple look at the roster of past speakers and entertainers illustrates why. I could provide letters and quotes from many of them about the event, like these: [4], but it would just be called "ad-like" and "promotional", I'm sure. I just have to ask again: does every properly-cited piece of information require "third party sources", or is this just some new obstacle to inclusion of a valid and factual credit, just like so many others that seem to go unchallenged? Rosencomet 00:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Over on the RfC two admins have agreed that there are too many links to starwood and that these count as spam.
As with everything on wikipedia we should try to assert all the claims. There is a greater value in a third party saying starwood is the premier neo-pagan festival than in you saying the same thing. Being connected to the event give you one particular view of the world and its easy to see the world from that prospective. In wikipedia it takes a mixing of peoples different view to create a ballanced encyclopedia.
Whilst some of the performers do espose Neo-Pagan ideas, other such as comic book artist Michael T. Gilbert do not show any strong conection to the movement. For these it becomes undue weight to list one apperance among many. --Salix alba (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. First, I did not claim that starwood is the premier neo-pagan festival IN THE STARWOOD ARTICLE, nor would I; it was simply part of a discussion. I agree that this would be promotional, unless I could put in a quote by someone notable in a print medium, for instance, and say that HE called it that. I probably wouldn't do it even then.
Second, it is precisely BECAUSE it is a unique event that Michael T. Gilbert's appearance at Starwood is notable, and because it was the first time a comic book writer and artist appeared at such an event (and, obviously, the first time he did), which I mentioned in the article before you deleted it. I know, in fact, of no other example (although Paul Mavrides was booked for Starwood 2003, but had to cancel for health reasons). You seem to say that if he doesn't appear at more Neo-Pagan events, or at this one more than once (a requirement you seem to have simply made up), that the mention is not notable because I haven't demonstrated a "strong conection to the movement" (another requirement you seem to have simply made up); but if he DOES appear at other events, the mention is not notable because it's being given "undue weight".
Third, you offer not a single cited appearance by Gilbert ANYWHERE ELSE, certainly not outside of comic conventions and book-signings, yet you say that this one is being given undue weight "among many". Where is your research to support that? And, as I've asked before, where is the requirement for a "third party source".
Please reread this comment on your talk page. --BostonMA talk 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have done so, and I still think the argument below is valid. If the only purpose of a citation saying that someone offered a class as part of the cirriculum of an educational program or performed at a concert, citing the published and publically available program booklet of that event should be enough. It is ridiculous to require that a newspaper or magazine sent reporters to cover the class or concert. And I don't see any such requirement being made generally on similar information in other articles. Rosencomet 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If I say a speaker is on the faculty of a university, what more do I need than to cite the catalog listing of that semester indicating that it is so? Must I find a newspaper article or a magazine reference saying the same to make it notable? The same goes for saying that an actor was in a particular play, or a musician played an event. A third party source would only support that the claim is FACTUAL, not notable. Plenty of non-notable bits of information get written down. Saying a fact is notable is not the same as saying it is news, or that it was well-reported.
A catalog listing provides evidence (partial and incomplete, but evidence nonetheless) about the factuality of an assertion that a given faculty member taught a particular course. However, Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything factual. That so-and-so taught such-and-such a course may or may not be notable. If mention of the course is made in third party media, that is some evidence that the course was notable. It provides such evidence because an independent source found it worthwhile to make note of that fact. You are correct that being notable is not the same as being in the news. Being reviewed by independent media is one form of evidence that an event is notable. Do you have another test of notability that you would like to offer for appearances at starwood events? --BostonMA talk 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You seem to first decide that the mention is not proper, delete it, THEN come up with some rationalization for the action. When one doesn't work, you try another, even if they contradict each other, because you are determined to see it gone whatever the reason. If I accept this deletion, do I have to look forward to the same treatment of every Starwood mention on every article, with new hoops to jump through and made-up requirements enforced by you and your buddies solely on these articles? I'm not accusing you in particular of stalking, but I am asking: when will this end? Rosencomet 19:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the suggestion of Salix alba (talk). Hopefully it would enable all of us proceed constructively in resolving our misunderstandings. There seems to be genuine disagreement over how many and what kinds of links are appropriate for the Starwood Festival and related articles, as well as for the articles of the listed featured speakers and entertainers -- those who had existing articles independent of Starwood as well as those whose articles were created specifically for Starwood. Mattisse(talk) 21:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I would certainly disagree with the notion that one must demonstrate a "strong connection to the Neo-Pagan movement" for an appearance at Starwood to be notable. Starwood is NOT just a Pagan festival, but a multi-cultural event that serves many communities and interest groups: World spirituality, world music & dance, Celtic culture, holistic healing, magical practices, fringe science, Mind science and Psychedelia/Entheogenic topics, grass-roots politics, gender issues, movement systems, conspiracy theory, science fiction & fantasy literature, performance art, and more. Many of the presenters and entertainers are there for reasons unrelated to Paganism.
Michael T. Gilbert, for instance, as a comic book writer & artist, joins Diana L. Paxson, David Jay Brown, Robert Anton Wilson, Christopher Moore, Robert Shea and others as a fantasy & science fiction speaker; some of these are Pagan, some have made no such claim. The same goes for Jazz artists like Airto Moreira, Muruga Booker, Stephen Kent, and Brian Auger, or political speakers like Paul Krassner, Stephen Gaskin, Martin A. Lee and Harvey Wasserman, or Entheogenic speakers like Terence McKenna, Ralph Metzner, Jonathan Ott, Jay Stevens or Stanley Krippner. In many cases their relationship with the Pagan community (or other communities) BEGAN with Starwood. And as it happens, the directors of the host organization, ACE, are Jewish.
I also have a problem with Matisse's use of the phrase "those whose articles were created specifically for Starwood". Only the Starwood Festival article itself deserves this label. All the others are notable by virtue of their own content. This constant attempt to criticize articles about notable individuals or citations placed to satisfy demands originally made by the same individuals that now call them linkspam should end. It seems to me to be based on their personal feelings about what they have concluded is my motivation, rather than whether the input itself is notable or proper. Starwood is notable by virtue of its 26-year history, its many notable speakers and entertainers, the many communities it serves and the contribution it has made, its references, its size, its popularity, and other factors. An appearance at the event is notable because Starwood is notable, and because it shows a desire on the part of the presenter to interface with these communities, and documents this fact (often the first instance). Any one of you can cite many appearances listed in articles about speakers that no one has asked for the demonstration of "a strong connection to the community" of those who attend the event. These citations merely establish that the appearance did, indeed, occur as claimed. If you believe that such citations are unecessary, please support that belief.
As for "3rd party source", I refer you to my previous statements. Since the rosencomet.com website (the official website of ACE) is neither run by the subject of the article nor by me, it IS a 3rd party source. The ACE & Starwood articles have additional references on them, so they don't rely on just this one. I do not believe that a simple citation of the schedule for the appearance requires anything more, and let me point out again that the same people who are saying that there are too many citations are saying this is not enough, and have criticized citations of multiple appearances (even though this might add notability, and Salix Alba criticized the Michael T. Gilbert citation because there was only one appearance). Asking for a newspaper verification is overkill, and more than is usually asked for in similar circumstances on other articles. I believe that these articles are being held to a higher, and often contradictory, standard. Why, I can only speculate. (A good example, and there are many, is the Dagmar Braun Celeste article. Its notability was established 2 years before I saw it, but the moment I ADDED more material to it, Matisse challenged its notability.) I'm sorry if I seem to be skirting "assumption of good faith", but some of the treatment I've been getting has been pretty harsh, and I have not touched a single article created by any of the folks that are making accusations about my motives. Rosencomet 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. I believe that the rosencomet website is not a third party source because it promotes the things that it reports on.
By that definition, a newspaper or magazine is not a third party source if it contains an ad for something it reports on. Therefor, the New York Times can't be a source for a report on the election results or anything about the Republican party if it has ads for Republican candidates in it, or financial news about GM or Ford if it has ads for cars built by those companies. This is just another made-up requirement by someone determined to find any rationale to disallow this information.
Rosencomet.com is controlled by the ACE which runs the Starwood Festival. It is undeniable that the Republican Party, GM or Ford may have influence on the New York Times. However, at least nominally, the New York Times is not controlled by any of these organizations. Rosencomet.com is not even nominally independent.
  1. Repetition for 26 years is not in itself evidence of notability. Please consider family reunions that may have occurred on an annual basis for that long, or even longer. Surely most family reunions are not notable. It pains me that you have not provided sources unconnected with the event. Otherwise it seems to me that person X's appearance at starwood is really only notable to those who attend starwood. In Boston, even very minor musicians get writeups in the local papers. --BostonMA talk 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a musical appearance in a big city and one at an event like this. (And by the way, I've booked many an act, and those "write-ups" are often paid for by the musicians or his/her agent in money or favors.) There are rarely reporters travelling to campgrounds to cover educational and spiritual festivals in the country, but that doesn't make them non-notable. An appearance at Esalen, Interface, or the New York Open Center is an important credit for a New Age speaker, but it doesn't get covered in the news. Again, notable and newsworthy are two different things. If the subject of an article has a PhD, it is notable, and a link to the university (or one at which he/she teaches) is common practice, but it is unlikely that the newspapers will cover it.
I will repeat that appearance in the news is not the only form of evidence of notability. However, we need some evidence other than your assertion, or the assertion of a website which is controlled by the promoters of the festival.
The Starwood festival itself may well be notable. However, that does not mean that every appearence of every artist at the Starwood Festival is notable. Think of a craft fair that may be held on an annual basis for the last 26 years. Having a stall at a craft fair is not necessarily a notable event, even if the craftsperson is notable, and even if the fair is notable.
One must also understand that some factors lend notability primarily in the interest group of the subject, and I'm not just talking about Starwood attendees. I mean interest groups that may include millions of people. A prestigeous reward to a scientist or a musician might, say, only be covered in the literature of the organization who awards it, and appear in the biography of the subject, but not make the papers. And not just awards, but important work: when an artist like Merl Saunders does the sound design for the Grammy Awards a few years running it is a notable credit in his bio, but the info would only be likely to appear in the Grammy Awards literature (which, by your definition, is not a 3rd party source) and his own bio. Media references to back up a simple citation is simply not a reasonable universal requirement.
Awards by organizations to individuals are often not notable.
And I think you are being a bit absurd when you don't see that a 26-year history of an event, as part of a list of other factors, lends notability to that event. It is rare, indeed. To compare it to a family reunion is ridiculous; however, if you find a 6-day, 1500-person family reunion that you want to call notable, I won't object - especially if the family includes a hundred authors, lecturers and entertainers who are notable in their own right. Go ahead, post the article, and see if anyone objects. Rosencomet 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
My claim is that a 26 year history does not imply notability. You are now mentioning new factors, such as the length of time (6 days) and number of attendees (1500). Obviously most family reunions are shorter and smaller. The information you now supply is closer to a craft fair. Again, not every appearence of every artisan at a craft fair is notable, even if the artisan and the fair are in themselves notable. --BostonMA talk 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is getting silly, and your objections are stretching credibility. There is no reason not to consider the length of the history of an event as A FACTOR contributing to its notability. I did not say it was notable because it lasts six days, though I do think the fact that it is the largest event of its type and has been for several years also contributes to notability. What I DID say is "if you find a 6-day, 1500-person family reunion that you want to call notable, I won't object". I said what I said and I did not say what I did not say.
This is in no way like a craft fair, and I have supplied NOTHING to imply any such connection. There are no art competitions, no awards given, no judgement as to who can sell what kind of wares in the merchants area (which is a small, colateral feature of the event), and I see no other comparisons. Artisans at a craft fair pay for a booth and sell their wares, and are judged at the event. These speakers and entertainers are booked and compensated, offer educational and entertainment programming, and are chosen ONLY if they are considered authorities in their fields. They are exactly like the roster of instructors in a one week summer session of a university or other educational institution, and entertainers (who are usually also instructors) booked by that institution. The vast majority are published authors or recognized recording artists, and/or leaders in their community or organizations and/or have many years experience and degrees or certificates in their fields, or they are unlikely to be on the bill.
You are reaching for any excuse to characterize this event as something it is not, because you simply wish to oppose its notability no matter what basis you can find. The speakers are notable, the venue is notable, and the citations are proper, and you can compare it to an art fair or a family reunion or a shopping mall or a block party, but none of your comparisons are valid. It is what it is, not what you would like it to be seen as. Rosencomet 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Approaching this from an entirely different angle. The Rolling Stones are certainly notable musicians. The Fleet Center in Boston is certainly a notable venue. Yet, neither the Rolling Stones article, nor the Fleet Center article mention that the Rolling Stones played at the Fleet Center. Why? --BostonMA talk 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not my problem. Maybe no one has written that fact into an article. There are thousands and thousands of notable bits of data that are not currently posted in an article; are you seriously contending that I need to tell you why a particular fact is not on a particular page? You seem to be from Boston; why not try posting it and see if anyone contests its notability? In any case, the Starwood Festival is unique in many ways; I don't know if Fleet Center is unique among similar venues. But knock yourself out. Saying "I don't see such-and-such listed on some other article" has no bearing on this.
And please stop cutting into the text of my posts with your responses. Just stick them at the end. It is a form of interrupting, and I consider it disrespectful and bad form to use in a debate or discussion. It also requires constant review of previous text looking for inserted responses breaking up a full argument that has already been presented. Rude, to say the least. Rosencomet 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
From WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - in particular it is not wikipedias job to lists all the performances of every performer.
I'm not sure about how unique Starwood is, there are many festivals in a similar genera, I only know some of the UK ones - Beltane Bash, Rainbow Circle, Green Dragon, Big Green Gathering, Oak Dragon Camps, many Mind Body and Spirit fairs/Green Fairs/Solstice gaterings, for an indication of the range of festivals see Festival Eye. Yes starwood is bigger than many, although the BGG attracts about 5000 people and Glastonbury which has a couple of fields devoted to this genera attracts 100,000.
As for Roling Stones at the Fleet Center, a quick google shows a lot of third party sources for those performances. Yet for some of the performers with links to starwood, even the performers themselves don't mention it. --Salix alba (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I looked at a few of the events you mentioned, and they are quite interesting. Glastonbury, of course, I knew about, and it's not at all like Starwood: it's primarily a music and poetry festival. There are certainly a lot of those, and they get a lot more people than a week-long event with a 150+ class schedule. But it's no more Starwood-like than Woodstock.
The Beltane Bash is strictly a 2-day Pagan event, a holiday celebration for one religious movement. Starwood is NOT strictly Pagan, but multi-cultural. It's like comparing a Channuka party with the Parliment of World Religions.
I found the Big Green Gathering very interesting - they seem to have diverged from an ecology event into something with more spiritual elements. Even with 5000 people, though, they have less than half as many classes. Starwood is certainly unique in the U.S.; perhaps there are a few events in Europe that are a bit closer, but still not IMO the same thing. Starwood is a multi-versity, offering what amounts to an intensive cirriculum across several genre's and bodies of knowledge. If Esalen ran Pagan Spirit Gathering and let Hookahville book the entertainment, that might be in the ballpark. Kind of.
Fleet Center, of course, is a totally different thing: not an event, not camping, not spiritual, not educational; the only relationship between it and Starwood is that both book bands. It's like comparing a Naval Acadamy to a boat show because both have people in floating vessels. Although Starwood has some top-notch musicians, they are usually also instructors and have been engaged to showcase cultural diversity, consciousness-altering music & art, and creative & spiritual expression. There's very little pop music, and few people would pay the Starwood fees and camp out for a week if it was just a series of concerts. I hope you don't think that a band has to be as famous as the Rolling Stones to be notable; that's a pretty high bar you're placing. But Starwood was the first venue in the Magical movement to host Big Brother & the Holding Co., Babatunde Olatunji & Drums of Passion, Merl Saunders & the Rainforest Band (in fact, Starwood engineered their reunion), Halim El-Dabh, Cyro Baptista, Brian Auger, Stephen Kent and many more, and they were the first American appearance of any kind for Baka Beyond (so their agent says, but I won't post it until I can document it). If it's a first, is that not notable, or will you say "only one appearance makes it unnotable" in one case, then "noting one appearance among many is undue weight" in another?
And of course Wikipedia isn't there to feature every true fact. I would not add "many people who come to Starwood eat cheese" or "most of the ground is covered with grass", no matter how well I could document the fact. But although you and BostonMA keep insisting these appearances are not notable, you don't seem to be able to come up with a positive criteria for what IS notable that is recognized and enforced generally across Wikipedia, and I don't think its fair to create special hoops that only articles linked to Starwood must jump through. I know you don't like the number of linked pages, but I won't apologize for being diligent. I keep finding and adding references when I can; I just added a book to a couple of speakers' articles that documents their involvement with Starwood and the importance they give it, and added references to that and another book to several articles that have nothing to do with Starwood, just to make them better. I keep beefing up articles in many other ways, and yes, even those of non-Starwood folks (like Annie Sprinkle and Rev. Paul Beyerl).
You have tried many criteria: how many times they have appeared, how much "connection" they have with what YOU consider the community of the event, and so on. I don't see those criteria being applied generally, and I don't see a requirement for more sourcing than I have provided for these appearances. I just think you don't like it, so you will keep trying to say it's wrong. Rosencomet 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a question on the Jeff McBride article. It seems to me that the link in the article showing he has established the Mystery School of Magic, the McBride Magical Arts Center, and the Vegas Vortex does not go to a source that meets the criteria of WP:V, or WP:RS to establish his notability. Its main page [5] is not independent or unbiased as I understand those terms. The other internal links, like the one to Free Spirit Gathering, do not mention him. The article itself is a magic-related stub, as is most of the article content.

Under References it can be established that the book listed exists, but that fact alone does not address the extent of Jeff McBride's involvement in the neo-pagan movement.

Under External links:

  1. a link to his promotional sales site for his business,
  2. a link to http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Jeff_Magnus_McBride where he has written a set of rules that outline memory-alpha's rules. (And on that page there is a link to http://www.imdb.com/ and to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564315/ which is Jeff McBride (II), having to do with some minor movie roles and a self-made film.) Next to the memory-alpha external link are three internal links to Wikipedia articles: Memory Alpha, Star Trek and Wiki.

I have missed any supporting documentation that he is interested in or active in the neo-pagan movement or that he considers his appearances at the Starwood Festival important. Yet out of the three links in the body of the article, two links are to www.rosencomet.com. Could someone clarify this for me? Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If I have posted this in the wrong place, I apologize and will move it to the correct location. Mattisse(talk) 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Addendum -- I would post this on the Jeff McBride talk page, but the article was created in February 2005 and from August 2006 on mostly Starwood related editors have been editing it without utilizing the talk page. The last magic-related post asking for documentation (on October 26, 2006) was not answered. Mattisse(talk) 21:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Give me a few days (preferably a week), and I'll try to expand his article to include more info on Jeff McBride's connection to Paganism. Besides his many appearances at Starwood and WinterStar, he has appeared at Pagan Spirit Gathering, Rites of Spring, Sirius Rising, Akasha Con, Free Spirit Gathering, and several other Pagan and Magical (not stage magic, the other kind) events. He ran several similar events himself, in particular one called FireDance, and publically declares himself to be both a Pagan and a student of Shamanism. I don't know how to post it without the content of the book being online, but the interview in Being a Pagan: Druids, Wiccans & Witches Today documents a connection with Paganism from an early age, and one with the Pagan community that began with the EarthSpirit Community (who run the annual event called Rites of Spring), who he met through a Rainbow Gathering, that predates his first Starwood by at least a year or two. In fact, he was turned on to Starwood by a Rainbow Gathering group that attended in the early 90s, as was Inanna Buchanan of Rhythm Alive.
Jeff teaches a workshop called From Showman to Shaman both at events (and I think he plans to make it available through the Maybe Logic Acadamy, and has said that he incorporates real Western Tradition magical elements into the cirriculum of the Mystery School of Magic. He has publicly stated that some of the tricks he uses were "taught to him by the Starwood Bonfire", and that an escape from an outdoor bonfire in plain view of both a live audience and television cameras that he performed for a cable TV special a few years ago was directly inspired by the Starwood Bonfire.
For a few more details, google search Jeff McBride Pagan and you'll come up with a few things. Rosencomet 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you use the Discussion page of Jeff McBride so that any people who are still thinking he is primarily a magician will be notified of what is going on? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 07:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I have a discussion question on LaSara Firefox Since the article has no external links in the body of the article that satisfies WP:V, do you think the article needs three external links to http://www.rosencomet.com in the article body? This is in addition to internal links to Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium. That makes five links in the body of the article that pertain to the Rosencomet organization when there are no other links, either internal or external that pertain specifically to the article's subject in the article's body. Does this seem perhaps to be overweighting the Rosencomet organization? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 05:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Addendum -- This is in addition to two internal links to Church of All Worlds, which I see from looking at the Starwood Festival article again, you mention in that article. Do you think the article could get by with only one internal link to the church? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I have a discussion question on Church of All Worlds in the Starwood Festival article, the founder of which is Oberon Zell Ravenheart in whose article the only footnote citation is to a site that says Welcome to our new Retail and Wholesale resource -- Enter the Catalog. Does that seem unduly commerical to you and in violation of WP:EL? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 05:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I have a related discussion question. In going to the site of Oberon Zell Ravenheart's co-wife, Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, I notice that the only footnote citation is to http://www.rosencomet.com (in addition to having an internal link to Starwood Festival and Church of All Worlds -- of which you explained many Starwood Festival people are members). The link to Green Egg it turns out was published by Church of All Worlds. The two external links within the body of the article do not, to my way of thinking, meet the criteria of third-party, unbiased, reliable sources specified in WP:V -- neither the one with all the sheep nor the one that starts out Dear Friends & Family,. Does the importance of the article's subject lie in the state of having an illness? There are lots of links and references bunched at the bottom of the article, a long Bibliography, partial Discography, and lots of References so it seems to me that there must be sources for footnote citations that would satisfy WP:V. Please help me out here. Am I wrong in thinking the footnote citation to the Rosencomet organization and the two inline links do not meet the requirements of WP:V? Is there a way of getting this question answered? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I have a discussion question about the article Raymond Buckland. The article's subject appears (though reference citations are lacking) to have some accomplishments in his life, the least of which is being a speaker at Starwood Festival in 1981 to which he has an internal link and an external link. In addition he has an internal link to Association for Consciousness Exploration. This makes 3 Rosencomet-related links. Is this giving undue weight to Starwood/Association for Consciousness Exploration/Rosencomet in this article? Could someone please take a look? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Addendum -- Raymond Buckland was not a Rosecomet article until August 19 when User:Rosencomet, User:999, User:Hanuman Das, and User:Ekajati took over the article. Mattisse(talk) 14:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If no one is willing to discuss these questions, then may I make the changes I feel necessary in these and other articles along the same lines on the issue of undue weight noted as a discussion topic by Salix alba (talk)? Mattisse(talk) 14:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's take it on a case-by-case basis. External links are justified when they provide a reference for important and non-obvious information. That was not the case with recent edits to Phyllis Curott, which added redundant (and broken) external links apparently aimed at emphasizing a trivial piece of information in the article by providing information that could also be accessed by following the extant internal links. It is the case with the Rosencomet link in Stewart Farrar; that link leads to a program that lists the Fararrs "with Gavin Bone", corroborating a non-trivial statement in the article. It seems pretty clear that redundant, uninformative, or broken links can be removed. Links designed to establish subject notability by association with Starwood can be removed, because association with Starwood (et al) does not confer or confirm notability. Links that are actually being used as references (like the Stewart Farrar link) can certainly stay. I support the removal of superfluous Rosencomet links. (I support the removal of all superfluous external links.) - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Mattisse has offered to take the links case by case, by listing a number of individual cases where there may be problems. No-one has responded to the case by case concerns. The question that I think is asked in Mattisse's most recent comment in this section is "how long does one wait when one receives no response on case by case issues? Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

User:Hanuman Das has been blocked [6] for 48 hours for a personal attack [7] against User:Mattisse. --Salix alba (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse has now been filed against User:Mattisse. --Salix alba (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Mediator has been removed from case and subsequently wrote User: Rseoncomet [8] offering to help him write more articles for Starwood Festival. Mattisse(talk) 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's because there is nothing wrong with any of the articles or their citations. This mediation request is simply continuing your harassment of Rosencomet and pagan writers and musicians. Clearly, even the moderator saw that! -999 (Talk) 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this goes as far as "harassment," but I do think the slinging of {fact} tags all over these articles was excessive. While I do try to AGF, I can certainly see how Mattisse's actions might reasonably be seen as directed at Pagan-related articles specifically. I have not taken the time to investigate whether Mattisse applies {fact} tags to other articles with the same vigor, but if zie doesn't that would be a reasonable basis to question zir good faith.
I've been reluctant to weigh in here, partly because (a)I'm Pagan and (b) have attended Starwood Festival (although not for fifteen years or so), so I didn't want to open myself up for accusations of being partisan or being unable to maintain NPOV.
Septegram 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have interacted with Mattisse on pages unrelated to Starwood, and I assure you the Mattisse does place fact tags in articles unrelated to Starwood or paganism, and this includes fact tags on material that I have written. My personal opinion is that Mattisse is doing Wikipedia a service by pointing out material for which there are no apparent reliable/reputable sources. I think that is the right thing to do. I think it is unfortunate when such actions are taken personally, or taken to be harassment. Please note that at the bottom of every edit page it says:
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."
Regarding 999's opinion that there is nothing wrong with the Starwood related articles, I suggest that he refer to the majority of opinions expressed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse. 999, you were one of the sponsors of that request for comment, which was asking the community for their comments and opinions. I think it is regrettable that you seem to disregard the majority of opinions that were expressed to you at your own request. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't doubting that Mattisse applies {fact} tags, but was questioning whether the application was uniform, or skewed toward Pagan articles as 999 asserts above.
I've seen the majority opinions to which you refer, and while I have great respect for some of those expressing that opinion, particularly User:Kathryn_NicDhàna, I'm not convinced. People, items and events within a fairly small, insular subculture such as NeoPaganism, may not be adequately sourced to make everyone happy, but may still be of valid interest, and be worth having in Wikipedia for the sake of those who are looking for information on the subject. At the risk of pulling out unnecessarily large guns, this sounds like a case for IAD (which I believe outranks W:N, should someone want to bring that to the party). Requests for references were made. The references were supplied. When the references were questioned, what is one to do?
What if user:Rosencomet took the references out and I or someone else added them in? I have no stake in Starwood, so my POV is not at issue.
Septegram 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Septegram. I do not doubt that the individuals for whom there are articles with Rosencomet links are notable. Nor do I doubt that the Starwood festival is notable. What I have trouble with is the notion that all of the appearances by individuals which are recorded in the Wikipedia articles suitably notable for this encyclopedia. I would have the same concern whether the information was placed by you or by Rosencomet. (The Rolling Stones are notable, and the Fleet Center in Boston is notable, but we do not mention the appearance of the Rolling Stones at the Fleet Center in either of their respective articles). You are correct that Wikipedia has information on some very questionable topics. However, most of this sort of cruft is not promotional. The matter stands differently when the information that may be not sufficiently notable for an encylopedia is placed in articles in such a way that it appears to be promoting an event. I hope this helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to de-Indent
I'm not sure your analogy holds, BostonMA. Both the Stones and the Fleet Center are high-profile entities. The Stones have played in thousands of venues around the world, and the Fleet Center has hosted hundreds (thousands?) of famous acts (actually, I note that the Stones article doesn't seem to have a "venues played" list and the Fleet Center article doesn't list "acts played" either), so listing these would not be practical.
However, the items in this case are moderately-large fish in a moderately-small pond, for the most part, so I don't see any reason not to link them all together; it certainly didn't seem promotional to me. Of course, that's part of what we're here to resolve...
Septegram 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Septegram. I think the key point you made is that the Stones have played at thousands of venues. The articles with Rosencomet links state that so-and-so appeared at the Starwood festival of such and such year(s). How many other venues did this same person appear at? They are not listed. If you go to some of the websites of the people involved, many do not even mention appearing at Starwood. I don't doubt that they did, because I tend to believe the rosencomet site is not lying. However, what does this say about the importance of that appearance to that person? One such person, requested to Rosencomet that such information be removed from her article. In the absence of third party sources, I think we are giving undue weight to rosencomet's POV regarding the importance of these appearances to the careers of the people involved. --BostonMA talk 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be right. How about a compromise: list either the Starwood appearances on the pages of the people in question or (preferably, I'd say) list them on the Starwood page as having appeared there. If these people don't list them on their pages, they may not, as you point out, feel that Starwood was that much more significant than scores of other venues where they've appeared. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be a list of some of the significant performers who've appeared at Starwood to be listed in the Starwood article.
That would eliminate the linkspam question, too.
Ha! Wisdom of Solomon have I!
Septegram 22:50, 29 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) (going offline for a bit) ... and yes, you have the wisdom of Solomon! :-D --BostonMA talk 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with this also as long as a link to the article Starwood Festival is added to the See also list of the article in question. -999 (Talk) 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an *either, or* proposal, not both. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
999, I don't see how that's substantially different from having the link to Starwood in some other part of the article about the performer in question. I'm trying to propose what I think is a reasonable compromise here: make the connection one way or the other, but not both.
Septegram 19:21, 30 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)
The point of the see also is that there is actually something to see about the subject that is not in the article on the subject, but rather in the Starwood Festival article. There is no legitimate reason not to have a link in see also. It allows the removal of the so-called "spam" links, but allows the reader to know that there is information about the subject in another article. I will not agree to any proposal that does not include a see also link to the Starwood article as a substitute for a direct mention in the article with citation link. -999 (Talk) 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Septegram's proposal is reasonable. An issue I've also been concerned about is the inclusion of external links in the former Starwood presenters/performers entries to the Starwood/ACE website. Ostensibly these are included as citations and references to "prove" these people actually did perform/present at Starwood, et al. However, this seems both an inadequate level of proof WP:VERIFY and a form of self-promotion. (I think this has already been mentioned but I think it's worth mentioning again.) --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of WP:V. The Starwood site is indeed the correct place to verify whether the performer performed at Starwood. What would not be acceptable would be to use a statement by the subject that they had performed at Starwood. With respect to the subject of the article, the festival programs published by the festival are a third party source. Only when used in the Starwood article itself would they be a first-party source, but this is specifically allowed by WP:V in an article about Starwood. -999 (Talk) 20:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Perfomances at Starwood do not need to be "verified" to ascertain a subject's notability. A person is either notable for their work or they are not. Given the huge numbers of folks who present and perform at the festival every year, having presented at Starwood is really irrelevant to notability and does not need to be cited. The only possible exception I see to this is if a performer or third party source has been reliably quoted as saying a particular incident at the festival was crucial to, say, the development of their work or tradition. However, that's not what has been happening with the inclusion of the Starwood links you and a few others have been spamming. The insistence on mentioning Starwood in the bio of everyone who ever gave a workshop at Starwood (even if only three people attended it), is a form of Google bombing; it is inappropriate and violates WP standards. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The citations were never intended to establish notablility. The citations were provided in response to Mattisse's (and her various socks) addition of fact tags to every mention of a performance. -999 (Talk) 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
999 has a point. Mattisse does seem to have overdone the {fact} tag bit.
As I'm fond of saying, there's blame and aplenty to go around in this quagmire.
Septegram 21:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I allowed to say anything or will I just get into more trouble? No one talks about me. Just Mattisse all the time. Why is that? I'm the one that did the bad stuff I think. Or have I been banned or something because I'm a newbie and this is just for important people? Timmy12 13:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jump in, Timmy12. If I'm above "newbie," it's only barely. I scarcely qualify as an "important people." If I can weigh in here, so can you.
Septegram 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Because you were one of the bad ones causing me trouble. I have this on my talk page (see belong):


-- Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page--

You and Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page, particularly here. Not sure what's going on, but I saw your name mentioned and thought I should alert you.
Septegram 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This was left on Ekajati's talk page by Septegram

I wondered how long that was going to take.
I'm not taking sides in whatever's developing here, but if something is brewing that relates to Hanuman Das and Ekajati, I thought all parties should know. If nothing is brewing, of course, there's no reason for anyone (including me) to be concerned.
Septegram 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
How am I "keeping you in the dark?" I simply thought that since their names were being invoked on your talk page, they might want to know about it. Chill.
Septegram 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You and the people like you are the reason I cannot be here at Wikipedia. Timmy12 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Timmy12, if you want to think I'm one of the "bad people" (which I find offensive, incidentally, but I won't lodge a complaint of personal attack because I try to be better than that) and that I'm the reason you "can't be here," that's your issue, not mine. I have not prevented you from doing anything. I have not wikistalked you, threatened you, or harassed you in any way. One good-faith attempt to inform interested parties of something that might involve them does not constitute an attempt to drive you away.
Please take responsibility for your own decisions and actions. I am not the reason you can or cannot do something.
I did suggest you jump into the discussion. I don't know what else I can do.
Septegram 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I hope you don't mind that I added a border around your quoted text to delineate it from the rest of your comments; it's a little more readable this way. If you want, I will remove the border.
Septegram 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest matters

(The indents on this discussion are difficult and I'm not sure it's appropriate to put a section heading in so I'm putting a line above this post as a separator. I think things will be easier with a section heading. Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

I don't believe I've seen any mention here of the obvious conflict of interest of having a user named Rosencomet inserting links in many articles to a commercial website with "rosencomet" in the address. I don't know whether the user Rosencomet is actually connected to the commercial enterprise of ACE/Starwood et al., but it still seems passing strange. I mean, this seems like conflict of interest on a fairly blatant level, yes? Or have I missed something along the way? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to my above comment, I went to User_talk:Rosencomet and found the following, written by Rosencomet on 17 August 2006 (all emphasis mine):

"First of all, no, I am not Mike Ingalls. I am the director of a group that has hosted appearances by Mike many times over the last 25 years. I was introduced to Wikipedia by someone who had seen a very incorrect listing about one of the events I facilitate, and after posting corrections I noticed that many authors, lecturers, and musicians that I thought were quite worthy of having listings (comparing them to others who were already listed) had no entries. Being the author of our event catalog and having handy short bios on many of these folks, I decided to post the most recent info I had on them as a courtesy. These are not, in my opinion, vanity listings, but actual short biographical sketches of authors and entertainers of interest."

I also just found this nugget on Talk:Association for Consciousness Exploration, dated 14 August 2006 (again, emphasis mine):

"As executive director of ACE, I agree. Rosencomet 23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"

So Rosencomet clearly has a financial stake in the events put on by ACE and is paid by ACE in some fashion. This is a clear case of WP:COI with Rosencomet's insertions of links to ACE's sites. Conflict of interest is of policy-level importance at Wikipedia. Those of you not familiar with the policy should read it.

An additional question comes to mind with the editwarring and spam around this issue: Do any of the people who seem keen to defend the linkspam (both external and internal) have a conflict of interest or financial interest in ACE/Starwood et al. that we should know about? I'm specifically asking this of User:Hanuman Das, User:999, and User:Ekajati. It's not an accusation, but I would like to know. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed elsewhere. I'm not going to look it up as Rosencomet can respond here. I believe that the organization is a volunteer one and that nobody get paid. I'm pretty sure Rosencomet doesn't.
For further clarification, I don't believe anyone else involved in this is associated with ACE in any way. I am not. In fact, I've never been to Starwood, although I have multiple friends who have. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I haven't been a part of the last fes days of this discussion, but I am in the process of moving my office to another location and I was without internet connection while the phones and DSL lines were being transferred. (I still can't send e-mails the normal way.)
  • As I have said before, I have NO financial stake in Starwood. NO ONE IS PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES, except some of the speakers and entertainers. The volunteers (and that's what I am) who run both ACE and its events are not financially compensated. Obviously, this includes Hanuman Das, 999, and Ekajati (who, as far as I know, have never attended Starwood nor been on staff). Your accusations (and that's what they are) are scurrilous and misinformed.
  • One of the functions I serve in ACE is my work on the program booklet. This does not constitute a conflict of interest; it merely indicates that I have access to real information to verify the facts I have posted and the citations concerning them. I began reversing the IMO stalking behavior that Paul Pigman has begun, running down the list of references to Starwood wherever he found them. I have stopped, because I don't understand this "compromise" or whether the internal links to Starwood will remain if they are not cited. I say again: the same people who now criticize and delete these citations REQUESTED citations in the first place!
  • I seem to be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with people who, from the conversations I've seen and my personal experience since August, seem to be targetting Pagan listings in general and mine in particular. I truly don't understand the venom associated with these folks desire not to see a link next to a line stating that a person appeared at an event to a page verifying that they did, indeed, do so.
  • As to the claim that an appearance at Starwood is not notable, nor that it doesn't add notability to the bio of a speaker or entertainer, I heartily disagree. Anyone in the Neo-Pagan movement, and a lot of both World Music and Consciousness authorities, will tell you that the Starwood Festival is the premier event in it's genre. Many speakers and entertainers began their carreers with Starwood appearances, and only got other engagements after this exposure. And yes, the impressive history of diverse speakers is part of the reason Starwood is a notable event, and therefor being booked there is notable. How else?
  • I was recently criticized for removing some information from Sally Eaton's article (which I had written) because she didn't want that particular obsolete info as part of her bio. I was told that once it was there and properly cited, the subjects desires did not matter (and that George Bush probably would like some of the things said about him deleted as well). Yet now I here that "One such person, requested to Rosencomet that such information be removed from her article" by BostomMA. I know of NO person that has asked for mention of having appeared at Starwood be deleted - it may be that another piece of data that I posted turned out to be inaccurate and needed to be changed, as with both Sally Eaton and Ellen Evert Hopman, both of whom I directly consulted, but NOT their connection with Starwood. I've also been told that citing the subject's web page is not a 3rd-party source, yet that if their web page doesn't mention Starwood the appearance is therefor not notable. This is ridiculous: people's individual web pages are not necessarily run efficiently, updated regularly, or assembled by anything LIKE the protocols of Wikipedia, and to judge the notability of a piece of information simply by whether whoever happens to handle a subject's web page included every notable fact is asking WAY too much of the random page handler. In fact, if Wikipedia isn't more complete and inclusive, if everything listed here can be found elsewhere, if the criteria is "whatever someone else decided was THEIR criteria for inclusion in THEIR pages", then what's the point of this exercise?
  • Once again, it seems to me that some folks, instead of trying to create and maintain the best possible resource available, are focused on ego battles and personal crusades. I don't appreciate Paul Pigman (or Timmy 12, just so he doesn't feel left out here) running down the list of articles I've contributed to and removing citations any more than anyone else would, and I see it as counter-productive and rude. I make no money at any of this, and have devoted a great deal of time creating and improving articles with bibliographies, discographies, ISBN #s and other data quite aside from the links (as anyone who reviewed my contributions could plainly see), and have sometimes done so with articles not linked to Starwood concerning people whop have never been there. These still seem to be decisions first made to attack my work, then come up with rationalizations for doing so after the fact. I'm sorry if this seems to violate "assumption of good faith", but NO such assumption has ever been made by these folks concerning me: I have repeatedly been accused of linkspam, self-promotion, and other faults even when I have responded to requests for the very citations I have provided by the very same critics. Rosencomet 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Rosencomet, I'd like you to read the WP:COI carefully and then say it does not apply to your insertion of either the external weblinks to ACE/Starwood et al or the internal Wikipedia links to ACE/Starwood. If you say it does not, I recommend you go back and re-read it. Financial gain is not the sole criterion for conflict of interest. I emphasized the financial aspect above because I apparently missed your assertion you are not paid. I apologize. I really did not know this. Nonetheless, you have a direct personal stake in ACE and its success; this falls under WP:COI. You could probably add other information about these performers/presenters in their Wikipedia articles but references and links to ACE/Starwood, et al., is strictly forbidden, in my opinion.
As to my question about User:Hanuman Das, User:999, and User:Ekajati's connection to ACE/Starwood, I think it was perfectly reasonable considering I thought I had found a monetary factor in this matter. I thought it best to explicitly ask the question rather than harbor suspicions. If this offended them, I apologize, but I still contend it is a reasonable question.
As to as to people attacking your work, I haven't looked but I suspect that edits that you've done that don't specifically involve links to ACE/Starwood haven't been changed much/any more than any other Wikipedia editor's contributions. I suspect you may have experienced a higher proportion of articles you've started being put up for deletion. I know I've put a few up for deletion because, in some of them, the people don't even come close to meeting WP:BIO notability guidelines.
Finally, if I haven't beat this WP:COI subject into the ground, I'd like to quote from it.
"Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization...
If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
  1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  2. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)."
In light of this and other information in the WP:COI guidelines, I'm not even sure you should be participating in this conversation. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for that last sentence. It was harsher than I intended and I believe the WP:COI guidelines are more generally attuned to discussion of pages for deletion. Again, my apologies. There is no excuse for incivility on my part. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't offended me by asking. I have no association with Starwood. I've never even attended one. Also, while I hesitate to speak for others, since 999 is gone for a month, I figure it's probably best to share what I know. I've communicated with him by email on the topic awhile back, and discovered that he had attended the very first Starwood in the early '80s, but hasn't attended one since. From that I conclude he is not involved in putting it on :-) —Hanuman Das 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Case for Mediation

I think the linkspamming is a clear case of policy violation, therefore not a case for mediation at all. I don't think it should have ever gone to mediation. As I seriously doubt anyone who is familiar with WP linkspam policies would support this google bombing attempt, how could a "neutral" mediator who is also familiar with WP policy even be found? In addition to WP policy, I think the consensus on the charges against Matisse show community consensus that it was a clear-cut case of spamming. Therefore, the spam, both internal and external, needs to be removed and some sort of action taken against the spammers, particularly in the cases where they have mislabeled those who revert the spam as "vandals" and "stalkers". This [clar: The spamming, then time spent reverting and re-reverting the spam, and then dealing with being harassed by the spammers] has wasted the time and energy of many good editors and it needs to stop. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with Kathryn NicDhàna on most points. I think mediation was unnecessary from a policy point of view. I also think that further mediation would consume more editors' time and likely not help the editors on the opposing sides see eye-to-eye. However, I think the case which was brought has had the beneficial result of attracting the attention of a larger community of editors, and in that sense was not a waste. Sincerely --BostonMA talk 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Agree also with Kathryn NicDhàna. I'm inclined to see if others might also agree that this particular group of linkspam is not tractable to mediation as they are blatant violations of firmly established Wikipedia policy. Not, as some might argue, a matter of a mere difference of opinion. And I think there need to be consequences for those who have spammed, who continue to spam, and who abuse the process (and other editors). --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree as per WP:SPAM, WP:EL and Kathryn NicDhàna's summary - However, what is the next step? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WeniWidiWiki (talk • contribs).
Strongly disagree - the mediation has worked. Myself, Ekajati, and Rosencomet have agreed that the citations requested by Mattisse are unneeded and can be removed. (999 is apparently gone until January). However, we object to the removal of internal links, which is something which is quite a bit less clear as far a policy goes, and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. —Hanuman Das 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment please read WP:BAND. --BostonMA talk 15:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly disagree for the reasons given by Hanuman Das (above and below) and Rosencomet (directly below). Also, at least one admin User:Samir has stated that in his opinion the links are valid as citations and not inherently spam. Thus, this is a matter of opinion. —Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment what Samir said is:
"I was trying to get to the bottom of these ACE links for festivals from Rosencomet.com. If Rosencomet is the organization that runs ACE or hosts the ACE festival infomation, then the references are valid. The question now turns to whether all these performers need references to having performed at ACE events -- Samir धर्म 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)"[10] (emphasis added by BostonMA)
--BostonMA talk 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree. Wherever a simple datum originates, as long as it is not presented in a way that is subjective or not encyclopedic, delving into the mind of the contributor seems an impossibly slippery slope for anyone to navigate. Obviously, proper citation would support the encyclopedic validity of the data, but strangely this is precisely what has been objected to. Very well, the citations are being removed (though I see that it is not being done case-by-case, but wholesale). Nevertheless, I see no reason to go further and take down internal links, especially when I've seen articles criticized for LACK of links to enough other Wiki articles. I consider the data notable, and worthy of at least an internal link to a Wiki page with related information.
I find it hard to imagine someone who is an expert in a field that is totally uninvolved in it. I am a volunteer in my field, and receive no compensation. I make my living in quite a different way. I don't think an environmentalist should be excluded from posting environmental articles, or a musician from posting musical articles. I am not a Pagan nor clergy, I am not a psychologist nor a musical promoter, I have no professional connection to the subjects of these articles except that, in many cases, I have worked on an event at which they appeared, and have access to the printed material concerning those appearances. I certainly get NOTHING out of posting an article about these artists, or creating a bibliography or discography within existing articles, except the satisfaction of seeing my work in print (as you all do), and my personal hope that I have provided a service to both the subjects and the Wiki readers.
To quote Kathryn NicDhana's user page: "I also like to occasionally work on Music and Locale articles, especially for music scenes I've been involved with, and places I've lived or visited. <snip>
On the other hand, ignorance does not equal NPOV. I believe one can be an expert in one's field and still write with a neutrual, encyclopedic tone. And that this is preferable to people with no knowledge of the topic hacking away at articles, categories or page names in the belief that what they are doing is "neutral" and "common sense". Sometimes "common sense" is actually ignorance."
And I object to the attempts to end this mediation. I feel that my work has been attacked, my motives have been attacked, assumptions have been wrongly made about me over and over, and that this is an attempt to call an open season on such activities that, in my opinion, are not justified. Just about EVERY citation I have introduced has been deleted, and the same people saying the mediation was unecessary are talking about "next steps". If I understand it correctly, mediation is designed to prevent this sort of ganging up on an editor.Rosencomet 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a misconception here about what mediation is. There is no such thing as someone who is not a party to the mediation; anyone interested in editing the article must be willing to participate for the mediation to work. In fact, if there is anyone interested in editing the article who decides not to be part of the mediation then the mediation cannot proceed. --Ideogram 03:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also a misperception and intentional rudeness on the part of the parties attempting to end the meditation. They keep calling Rosencomet and others "spammers" in violation of the no personal attacks policy. They have been informed the Rosencomet did not set out to put links in all the articles, but was essentially forced into it by Mattisse, who violated WP:BITE by first attempting to get all of his articles deleted, and then added (either herself or using one of several sockpuppets) {fact} tags on every mention of a Starwood appearance. The links were added as citations. No one attempting to keep them in the article has any objection to a consensus decision that they are not needed. —Hanuman Das 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think editors who look at the history of this dispute may form rather different opinions regarding who has been rude, who has been violating WP:NPA and who has violated WP:BITE. --BostonMA talk 15:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not here to comment on the particulars of this case. I am only trying to clear up some misconceptions about what mediation is. --Ideogram 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Disagree. From what I saw, the links Rosencomet placed were in response to Mattisse's placing of {fact} tags on the Starwood article. I think Mattisse was heavy-handed with those tags, and Rosencomet was simply trying to respond. That may have gotten out of hand, but that doesn't mean Rosencomet was trying to Google-bomb Wikipedia.
Now, it's possible that Rosencomet was then overenthusiastic about adding external links, but again I think that could be laid to inexperience and (as I said) overenthusiasm.
I want to AGF here. If we assume that Mattisse was acting in good faith rather than attacking Pagan articles (as some have suggested), why not assume Rosencomet was as well?
The question of Mattisse's motivation in placing {fact} could be fairly well settled by someone with more time than I, simply by reviewing how liberal Mattisse was with such tags on other articles zie edited and comparing that with zir treatment of the Starwood article.
Septegram 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The purpose of mediation, as I see it is to resolve a problem, not to lay blame. The problem that is seen by a number of editors, and which led to this mediation was link spam. In my opinion, whether or not Mattisse placed "fact" tags inappropriately is history, and doesn't help us resolve the unresolved problem. Whether rosencomet added external links in response to those "fact" tags is also history. What is done is done. What is needed is to solve the problems we are facing. Will further mediation help in this? Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur that the goal is to solve the problem, not to "lay blame." However, we're looking for the right solution; this may include some questions regarding the appropriateness of actions people took, leading to this mediation.
My point was more that there appear to have been errors of judgement on both sides, and that if we AGF on one side, we should at least consider doing so for both sides. Accordingly, I'd like to find a solution that is equally (un)palatable to all, unless it can be shown that (only) one party was clearly acting in bad faith.
Septegram 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Septegram. Could you clarify how a discussion of user behavior will help us find the right solution? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 16:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
By determining whose actions need to be supported and whose overturned? If someone acted in bad faith, that tends (IMO) to incline me against their actions. Your Mileage May Vary, and obviously I'm just one voice. I'm also not terribly experienced with this Wikipedia Thang (and much less so with mediations), so I may be missing some critical information about the process.
I have to go do some of the work for which I'm getting paid now... {grin}
Septegram 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm. I don't see it as a question of supporting or overturning actions, but of deciding whether or not certain content belongs in certain articles. It is quite possible that rosencomet acted in good faith when he/she added links, acting on advice that she/he received which he/she believed to be sound. However, acting in good faith does not mean that we keep the links that were added.
But let's look at it from another angle. Mattisse has been subject to numerous RfCs. The consensus of these RfCs, is quite apparent. Wouldn't you agree that at some point, we need to accept the consensus of the RfCs and stop badgering Mattisse? If you agree, where do you think that point is? Haven't we already passed it? Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
GRAR. I had a complete response and it got eaten. Trying again...
I agree that the question is what should and should not be on Wikipedia. However, I also think that there are questions about that which are still being resolved (the US Constitution is much older, and look how much wrangling still goes on over that!).
If Mattisse's intention in placing the {fact} tags was bad, then they can be removed along with the links and the whole thing falls apart. If zir intention was good, and these are reasonable tags, then the question arises what to do about Rosencomet's responses? Were the supplied tags reasonable? If so, then they should stand and the issue is resolved. If not, they should be removed and the issue of whether they were inappropriate or actual linkspam addressed. If Rosencomet then went on to linkspam/Google-bomb Wikipedia, that needs to be addressed too.
Frankly, I think there have been questionable acts on the part of several people, and there's blame and aplenty to go around.
I'm not trying to badger Mattisse, incidentally. I've only seen one RfC on zir, and I'm not sure it's been resolved.
Or maybe I'm just out of my depth here and should shut up. It may be that I'm missing information about how Wikipedia and/or mediations work.
(my original response was brilliantly argued and would have caused all parties to immediately come to agreement, shake hands, go on to make Wikipedia perfect, cure cancer and AIDS, bring world peace and end world hunger. Too bad it was lost.)
Septegram 18:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow! World peace and a resolution to this conflict. What an unfortunate loss :-(. I think it is often very difficult to accurately determine the intentions of another. However, even if that were not so, edits made with the best intentions may not bring about the best encyclopedia. At the end of the day, I think we still need to determine such questions as whether certain links belong in certain articles independently of any consideration of the intentions of the players involved.
I did make a mistatement regarding multiple RfCs. You are correct that there has been only one RfC on Mattisse. My memory did not serve me well on that one. However, besides the RfC, the matter has been discuss repeatedly. In my opinion, the voice of the community in these discussions, including the RfC, has been clear. Surely at some point the matter needs to be dropped. Haven't we already passed that point? --BostonMA talk 02:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, only part of her behaviour has been "cleared" by other editor's comments. There seems to be a consensus that tagging articles needing citation or removing what is considered spam is okay. No one whatsoever has weighed in on the issue of using multiple sockpuppets to give the appearance of a group of editors. Is this okay with everyone? Because if it is, I'd like to start doing it too, maybe to influence this mediation or the RfC. —Hanuman Das 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest participants in this discussion focus on whether or not the links (internal and external) should be included, not on the intentions of those who placed or removed them. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC in progress

There is now an RfC in progress on the issue of the Starwood linking: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles.

Please note, no one here has tried to "end" this "mediation". This process has never had an official mediator work the case. After Geo was taken off the case for inaction, numerous mediators and admins who were asked to step in said they could not be neutral about the issue. The general consensus among admins and medcab members consulted was that it go to an RfC. Others suggested more serious administrator intervention. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that no one has interacted with me on the mediation questions I have raised regarding my concerns about the articles. Rather than discussing the issues, it seems preferable to many to make it a question of my charachter which has nothing to do with the merits of any articles. I was not even part of this mediation in the beginning. My name was not listed and I was not notified. Timmy 12, more of a newbie than Rosencomet, and the one "sockpuppet" that was originally named, has been driven off by the rude behavior of so many. So I am unclear what is being mediated here, especially in the absence of a mediator. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask those who consider the links to Starwood to be "link spam" exactly what they think wikipedia's goal in not having linkspam is? That is, why is there a rule against linkspam? Does a link in a performer's page, to an actual appearance at a real concert/event, equate to a link to "Buy Viagra Now" ? And if not, why not? And if so, why? The whole issue seems to be a tempest in a teapot until a clear concept of *why* is presented. And before you link me to the policy page, my point is not what is stated, but what is the spirit of that? What is the underlying issue that we're trying to prevent? Wjhonson 07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Unpaid advertising? Addhoc 12:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Imbalance and lack of objectivity/neutrality in the contents that are presented to readers? --BostonMA talk 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New mediation page

I don't know how this is going to work, but the new mediator as started a new page for mediation: Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation. This page should probably be archived or something and then redirected to that page? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not usually, because the info at the top of the page is used for the MedCab listing. Thanks for letting every know... Addhoc 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Wikipedia%7EMediation_Cabal_Cases_2006-11-03_Starwood_Festival_39f5.html"