Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Starwood
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Statement by User:Jkelly
I'd say that ArbCom can safely take a pass on this one. The actual behaviour seems to be adding Notable person was a guest speaker at [Convention] in [Year] [CITE the website] in the article [[Notable person]]. It's probably true that User:Rosencomet could use a stern reminder that it is inappropriate to replace such mentions when local editors to the articles in question remove them for lack of import, and an encouragement to recognise that editing that annoys people is probably bad and should be taken to talk to gather consensus. Frankly, local editors seem to be handling the situation appropriately, so it is not obvious to me that admin intervention is needed here, let alone an ArbCom case. Jkelly 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:67.117.130.181
Wikipedia articles are not WP:OWN'ed by "local editors" or by anyone else. We all have the duty to clean up spam where we find it, and if someone inserts hundreds of links to his or her own site into Wikipedia, that is spam (WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI). Also, Special:Linksearch and user contrib histories are essential tools for spam cleanup and using them to locate and remove spam links is not "stalking". If other "stalking" has taken place it hasn't been described here. The credulity of some of the mediation participants notwithstanding, spammers love to insert as many links as they can into Wikipedia, not just to attract visitors through the links but also to increase their search engine rank from the links' mere presence in Wikipedia, so they will find any rationalization they can for inserting and defending the links. Any analysis of this situation should done by viewing it through that lens. Finally, as of right now, linksearch shows 59 extlinks to *.rosencomet.com mostly in article space, so "local editors" IMO are not cleaning them up and so the task does fall to other editors. I certainly would have removed all of them if I'd come across them randomly. (I'll leave them alone for now).
I would not have thought this case had enough subtlety to lead anyone to call for an arbitration process. I'd have expected a straightforward user-initiated spam cleanup to remove the spam links, plus suitable administrative blocks against the spammers if the spamming continues, plus extlink blacklisting of the spammer's domains if necessary. If arbcom does take the case it should be to impose more drastic remedies than the above. (From uninvolved user 67.117.130.181 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)).
- The pages are not WP:OWN'ED by the mediation participants either. I did look at the main mediation page before posting that but I missed the distinction about the nature of the spam at that time of night. OK--spammers are gaming the system by wrapping the spam up as "citations", as has been predicted and observed at other times. There was just a discussion of this on (IIRC) some AfD (I'll see if I can find a link). Anyway it's accepted practice in disputed articles to require that those wanting to insert facts into an article document not only that the facts are verifiable by reliable sources, but also that the facts' relevance to the article's subject's notability is verifiable. The Starwood Festival's (lack of) relevance to the subjects of the articles where those links originate is in fact discussed in the mediation. That plus the COI issues mean these links are still spam (both internal and external). I've struck out my comment that the case is so simple though. I don't think there's been an arb case of this nature before, so arbcom may want to weigh in. I may add some thoughts about the relevant principles to the RFAR talk page later. 67.117.130.181 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by JzG
I am not sure if I should perhaps be included as a party, having taken part in some of the discussions around this subject. I looked into this and formed the view that there were several things going on:
- User:Rosencomet undoubtedly linkspammed and edited in support of his commercial enterprise, a clear conflict of interest.
- User:Mattisse worked against that, but through various actions and comments led to accusations of ill-faith; Matisse was also harassed by others, although he did not do over much to help his own cause here.
- Reasonably enough, citations were provided for a number of individuals' having taken part in the Starwood festival, these were in the form of links to the rosencomet site, which led to further allegations of linkspamming.
- Many of those individuals should not be linked to the Starwood festival as doing so gives undue weight to a very minor event in their lives and serves mainly to promote the commercial entity which is the festival, and appearing there is often (usually) of no demonstrable importance in the life of that individual.
- The Starwood, ACE and WInterStar articles should probably be merged.
I think that means I agree completely with Pigman :-) Guy (Help!) 13:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-Statement by Che Nuevara
I'm mediating the case, but most of the issues here seem to predate my involvement; I took the case to attempt to foster civility and progress, and we seem to have at least an overarching feel of the former. I can't really comment on this case as I wasn't around for most of the issues, but I am available for comment if something that comes up on the mediation page becomes relevant. - Che Nuevara 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Conversation with Che
On CheNuevara's advice, I've reprinted our discussion about the links and my desire to move forward with actual constructive action. I have reduced the number of names in the "Featured Speakers" and "Featured Entertainers" sections of the Starwood Festival article, and deleted some of the links on other pages where they have been placed. I may do more, but I started with the ones easiest to decide on. (If you think I deleted one that should have stayed, you can act on that yourself. I had only subjective judgement to go by.) I will place this on the arbitration page as well. user:Rosencomet
- Dear Che, I have been trying to get some feedback about an actual compromise position which would allow me to proceed with some actions that would satisfy those trying to dump my work, but I just don't seem to get any response from them on any constructive path. I am prepared to begin reducing the number of links and names myself (actually, I took down a number of the external links that had been untouched by Pigman in his last round). I would like your opinion on these questions:
- 1. Is this something that would help or hurt? Is it improper to make ANY changes while the mediation is ongoing, including some that might help allevate the conditions that inspired it, or would some real actions on my part to change the situation be welcome?
- 2. I am still not clear as to when EXTERNAL links are appropriate or even NECESSARY. If a mention is generally NOT considered non-notable (for instance in the article of a subject who has written a published article mentioning his appearance, or has been quoted in a book discussing, it or posted info about it on his/her website), should there be an external link to support the fact of the appearance to the program for the event in question?
- I feel that I have obviously made mistakes in the way I've gone about things, but there are some like Hanuman Das who went from initial criticism to a great deal of help showing me how to reference, cite, verify, and otherwise wikify my work, and others who (to put it mildly) are not interested in such a path. I have made what I consider real contributions to Wikipedia, creating roughly 40 new articles and contributing to many more, and I wish to be able to continue. I would like to make things right, rather than constantly having to defend myself against what I perceive as hostility. I hope you can advise me on such a path. Rosencomet 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- First off, I would like to commend you on your willingness to admit your mistakes; we all make them, but precious few recognize and accept their own. I believe that shows a great deal of maturity and both a real willingness and an ability to continue to be an effective good-faith editor.In general I try to discourage editing an article under mediation because tendentious editing during mediation displays a lack of good faith effort. In your case, however, removing these links displays a willingness to give from your original position towards a compromise position; you are in effect acknowledging the legitimacy and merit of the position you originally contested. I do not see this kind of editing as a problem.In theory, everything that is not by its very merit self-evident needs to be sourced somehow. In practice, although it sounds like a contradiction in terms, there is great disagreement over what exactly qualifies something as self-evident enough. In general, I think the objection to the links was on the basis that the information might be unnecessary -- that the information was included to "justify" the addition of link. I'm not saying that was your intention, but it seems to me that that's how it came across.I think the most important thing is to work with the community. You need to make your intentions very plain to the Arbitration Committee -- I would recommend telling the committee everything you've told me here. If you show a willingness to do the right thing -- which, on Wikipedia, means working in the framework of broad community consensus -- then you have nothing to fear from an Arbitration process.I will be around if you need help or advice in any way; I'd be more than happy to weigh in on things.Peace - Che Nuevara 19:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment by Geo.plrd
I was the previous mediator in this case. It appeared and still appears to me that;
1. Matisse is quick to jump to conclusions (See my talk archives 6,7)
2. Rosencomet has mentioned that he works for ACE, and was just adding info from the company bios.
3. There are a whole group of editors who want this info out of Wikipedia at all costs.
I see no reason why the info should not be allowed if it conforms to policies. Geo. 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
