Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To address a few questions that were brought up on my talk page:

  1. This is mediation, not arbitration, and I believe that the sole purpose of mediation is to get article progress moving in a forward direction, which means getting editors to work side-by-side in a constructive and peaceable manner. That is to say, I am aware of the conduct of all users involved, but I'm not in a position to do anything about what's already done. If user conduct becomes a problem, then we will deal with it in the correct manner, but commenting on other users' past behavior is not constructive. That does not mean I am not aware of the circumstances of this issue.
  2. I insist that all participants both act with and offer good faith. Because mediation is a voluntary process, it cannot progress properly without a level playing field. This is not negotiable. Again, if a user begins displaying signs of good faith, it will be approached appropriately, but a lack of good faith from the get-go will result in a resounding failure.
  3. I'm a member of MedCab (or am I? ...), not of MedCom. I'm also not an administrator. I put these out on the table because they were brought up on my talk page, and I believe in complete transparency. However, I maintain that these facts have no bearing on my ability to effectively mediate a dispute, and I ask that you all please consider nothing but the issue at hand during this process.
  4. It is an undeniable fact that all human beings have inherent biases and prejudices which they bring with them to any situation. These are inescapable and part of the human condition; while they can sometimes be altered, they are very deeply ingrained. However, it is possible and indeed expected that everyone recognize their own biases as regard this dispute and the other users involved, and make a good faith, complete effort to not let these biases interfere with this process.
  5. I believe that Wikipedia policy is good, but not perfect. I believe in ignoring all rules when it is in the spirit of the betterment of the 'pedia and when it does not conflict with basic idea of Wikipedia. I attempt to apply Wikipedia policy in the most sensible way possible.

Before we get started, I would like everyone to tell me as neutrally and succinctly as possible exactly what they thing the crux of the disagreement here is.

I have of course looked over the relevant pages, but I find it helps to have everyone say what's on their minds at the very beginning.

At this point I would like to request that you not respond to each others' comments, simply give your own view; later we will get to actual discussion, but this is how I'd like to start.

Thanks for your cooperation, everyone. - Che Nuevara 06:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Initial statements by involved parties

[edit] Statement by User:Ekajati

Questions to be answered clearly before proceeding
  1. Are the external links, which were clearly provided as citations, valid citations? (This should be considered completely separately from the issue of whether there is a problem with the internal linking - i.e. assuming that the internal links are acceptable.)
    1. If they are, the whole issue of external link spamming should be dropped, and those mentioning spam, spamming or google bombing should be warned about personal attacks, as those words imply that those who support the citations as citations are vandals.
  2. Under precisely what conditions can an internal link not be made to another article? Which of those conditions apply here? Are these conditions based on policy or simply guidelines.

Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Rosencomet

  • I agree with Ekajati's assessment; I think that too much focus has been made on the perceived motives of parties on both sides, rather than the validity of the citations & links themselves. I would add to point number 1:

Re: a link to the program or speaker/entertainer roster of an event, posted on the website of the organization hosting it, indicating that the speaker/artist did indeed appear at that time and place -- is that a valid citation for that purpose? Is it a necessary citation? Rosencomet 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Wjhonson

Copying my post here, from the old page: 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 17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Pigman

  • The internal links from performers/presenters pages to at least three different Wikipedia articles related to the same group seems grossly overdone, in my opinion. Some of the guidelines I'm applying are WP:BAND as well as WP:SPAM. The listing of specific venues and events on performers/presenters articles seems unnecessary unless there is documented proof (by an independent source) the appearance was a significant milestone in a notable person's career and development. The mere fact of their attendance doesn't seem significant to me. Additionally, User:Rosencomet has a stated conflict of interest as Director of the organizing group yet he has inserted many of these references and vigorously defended them. This is not a personal attack but an observation and, I think, a significant factor. The vast majority of these internal link insertions appear gratuitous to my eyes, many of them obviously shoehorned into the text with little regard for their appropriateness or significance to the subject. Browse through this list for some instances. A representative but by no means exhaustive selection of specific examples are here, here, and here

--Pigman (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:AdelaMae

  • I would like to bring up some relevant policies and guidelines related to external links.
  • Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided: "3. Links mainly intended to promote a website." I think that in cases where they are not either the official webpage of the article's subject or used to provide a necessary source citation, external links fall under this heading. The "necessary" is important - imagine someone who goes around inserting references to a small band into the articles of every (relatively major) band they've played with or been inspired by, and then "verifies" those references through links to the band's website. Those links are spam, not citations, because the fact they are verifying is unnecessary to the article.
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "If you have a conflict of interest... avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles." This guideline needs to be followed. However, my understanding is that not all people involved with inserting these links have conflicts of interest.
  • Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer: "Contribute cited text, not bare links." I think this guideline should generally be taken with a grain of salt, because we don't want articles overflowing with quotes. In this situation, however, it might be useful to look and see whether some of these links refer to information that would add something to the encyclopedia were it quoted in the article body. If they don't, we need to look long and hard at the link. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] summation of issues

It seems to me that there are two separate content issues here:

  1. Is the event roster of a venue sufficient evidence to verify that a particular performer appeared there?
  2. Is the fact that a particular performer appeared at a particular venue worth including in that performer's article and/or the venue's article?

This is complicated by the fact that, in this case, the venue is a relatively minor one. This means that a) its importance is not self-evident, and b) sources on it are relatively limited.

Also, there has apparently been user conduct related to this and similar articles which is questionable at best. This is a problem insomuch as it interferes with article content.

Comments on this summation? - Che Nuevara 18:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think that there is any doubt that the individuals did appear. I am also not sure there is a dispute regarding whether the event roster is inaccurate or unacceptable as a source of information. I think item 2 is the real issue. But I will let others speak for themselves. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I included point 1 as per Rosencomet's comments above. - Che Nuevara 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Agree with BostonMA item 2 is the real issue. Agree with the rest of Che's summation. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I agree with BostonMA and Kathryn NicDhàna that I believe item 2 is the more central issue. As to the validity of using the event roster as a source, I'm divided. In many circumstances, I'd be willing to accept it as a source for this kind of thing (merely verifying an appearance). But because this situation is so intertwined with the behaviour around these particular insertions, I feel a lower sense of credibility about the source. This is central to the conflict of interest issue as well. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops Comment I neglected to say I think CheNuevara's summation is a fair description of issues. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Under assume good faith I would have to credit the venue as a reliable source for the fact of the appearance. Certainly, the appearance of a semi-major star could be verified by an independent citation to a local newspaper. The mere inertia in going to that length shouldn't be enough to discredit the more primary source. I also don't feel that the contributing editor should be required to go to that length when they have, in their actual possession, published sources, not necessarily easily verified. Ease is not the bar, potential is the bar. On the second issue, I feel that Undue Weight should be applied. If a major star appears at a minor venue, it goes to the venue's page, not the stars. It's major for the venue, minor for the star and should be treated as such. However if a minor star appears, it could go in the minor star's page, since it could be significant for that star. Wjhonson 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I don't perceive issue #1 as being the problem. Issue #2 is highly relevant, however. I perceive the inclusion of someone's appearance at a convention or musical performance redundant, unless it was exceptionally noteworthy. Mere attendance of an event is not notable, for someone who makes money by speaking or performing at such events. Also, I think that much of the Starwood Festival entry itself is nothing but a link-farm of names of attendees. There are many similar conventions every year and the same personalities appear at all of them. See Wic-Can Fest, PantheaCon, Pagan Alliance Festival, etc. and look at the attendance and overlap of speakers and performers. If we set a precedent by mentioning every appearance of these people, I fear that these entries will become inundated with references to for profit conventions /festivals, etc. - whether by accident or through blatant promotion. - WeniWidiWiki 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment' - I believe (and think I've stated this before elsewhere, but I could be wrong) that the inclusion of mention needs to be taken on a case by case basis. I also think that the official program pages are perfectly suitable citations, and should citation be required, they should be used. I agree that there would have to be a good reason to include mention in the article of a major "star", but that history should be taken into account. Perhaps the star was minor when they first appeared. Status at the date of first appearance is what should be considered, not current status. I don't think there is any problem with putting a mention in articles of minor figures whose, uh, how to put it, rising reputation, might be due in whole or in part to their appearance at this event. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment As to the first issue, it seems that most people weighing in here (and I agree) accept that the roster of an event is a valid citation that the individual did, indeed, appear in the program of that event. The question here, then, is whether it was proper to provide a citation in the form of an external link to that program booklet or speaker/entertainer roster as published on the event's hosting organization's website, and whether it is NECESSARY to do so.

The second issue is more complex. One can't simply ask "is appearance at an event notable". It may make a difference for what speaker and/or performer, and whether the venue has a significance such that their participation in the event says something about the communities they associate with. Appearing at Bob Jones University, or an event run by the Gay Activist Alliance, may say more than just "they appeared as a lecturer at the Summer Fun Weekend run by the Cleveland Ladies' Book Club". If a speaker or artist chooses to participate in the highest profile & largest festival in the Neo-Pagan community, one dedicated to interaction between other different spiritual and world-view communities, that says something.

Also, I think it is misleading to characterize these as "mere attendance". These are appearances in the cirriculum and/or the entertainment on a professional level (some paid, some not), often both. I would agree that simple attendance at an event is not notable.

And as far as undue weight, these are appearances I have the ability to cite and verify. I am certainly not planning to delete other entries that other editors add of similarly-notable appearances elsewhere. In the case of Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, for instance, Starwood and WinterStar are merely two names in a list of Public Appearances. I think an author/lecturer (and a Wiki reader) would consider such appearances (not book-signings, but hours of actual teaching) to be part of their credits that lend notability to their careers and say something about their breadth and scope.

And I think Ekajati has a good point; in the past 26 years, many individuals' careers benefited to this particular exposure, either by being showcased in their community (as in the case of many Neo-Pagan authors) or by expanding their exposure into a new demographic (as in the case of Harvey Wasserman, Paul Krassner, Robert Shea, and Stephen Gaskin). In the case of all three events mentioned by WeniWidiWiki, they got the idea of booking the speakers they featured by looking at the Starwood lineup. Those events are smaller, younger, and often call ACE personnel for the contact info for the speakers they feature. Wiccan-Fest is less than half the size of Starwood, PantheaCon is a four-day conference at a hotel (more comparable to WinterStar), and the Pagan Alliance Festival lasts for 7 hours. They rarely have guests of the same popularity as the headliners at Starwood, and their guests will tell you that the premier venue to appear at in the Neo-Pagan festival circuit is Starwood.Rosencomet 23:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on your comment... So if all that's true, as I see it, a pagan speaker presenting at Starwood is like an American philosopher presenting at the American Philosophical Association: it's a big deal, but if you're in Wikipedia, it's because you've done bigger and better things. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • True. I do not consider a speaker who's ONLY credit is an appearance at Starwood to be notable. I only say that it is worthy of being one of several points lending notability to the speaker, and worthy of a mention in his/her bio.
I think this analogy is a little flawed; membership in the APA indicates a distinction placed upon someone because they have reached a certain level. Appearance at a venue is, by and large, the choice of the person to allow association between himself and whatever the purpose of that venue is. I should think there is no question that people who appear at Starwood are okay with being identified with it; the question is, is it worth identifying in an encyclopedia. That seems to be the crux of this issue. - Che Nuevara 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking at the APA website: "membership is open to persons whose training in philosophy has been advanced and systematic enough to make them competent to teach the subject at the college or university level AND/OR to persons with special achievements in philosophy". Substitute the subject they are speaking on at Starwood, and I'd say the qualifications are comparable, "special acheivements" including being the author of several books on the subject, many years of dedication to it, founding a respected school or tradition associated with it, etc (some of these subjects HAVE no university as such) - but you have to PAY to be a member of APA. However, AdelaMae merely compared it to PRESENTING at the APA, not membership. For all I know, that only requires having something to say that the organizers of an APA conference want to hear. Starwood speakers and performers are selected among many applicants, and many are turned down for lack of background, experience, training, etc. Particularly notable individuals are approached directly without submission. I think this is a GREATER distinction; merely buying an ACE membership is not. It is NOT just a matter of "the choice of the person to allow association between himself and whatever the purpose of that venue is", though that may determine the applicant's choice to submit an application. Rosencomet 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment on Rosencomet's comment: The reason I characterized performers/lecturers' listing in the program as "mere" is because I'm unaware of any set or strict criteria for selection to perform/present at these events. For example, if an author is guest of honor at the World Science Fiction convention, I expect they probably have notable writing achievements in science fiction to be selected for that invitation. Perhaps not the best example but my point being, even as the largest Neopagan event of its type, it is still a venue and not, of itself, specifically notable to the careers of people who do presentations/performances many times in many places each year. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see the above comment. And I disagreed not only with the use of the word "mere", but the word "attendance". These are featured speakers and artists APPEARING at the event in that capacity; I agree that mere attendance at an event, any event, is not notable. Rosencomet 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] noteworthiness of Starwood appearance

The principle contention is apparently whether presenting at the Starwood Festival is noteworthy for any particular individual. So here are some things to think about:

  • If someone presents / performs at Starwood, what does that say about that person's credentials?
    • Are those credentials inherently noteworthy?
      • If not, what could make them circumstantially noteworthy?
    • Are those credentials inherently relevant?
      • If not, what could make them circumstantially relevant?
  • What sets a venue apart from other venues as particularly noteworthy or relevant?
    • What does the sum total of people appearing at a venue tell us about the venue that a qualitative description doesn't?

Thoughts? - Che Nuevara 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that presenting/performing at Starwood says anything about the person's credentials. Selection appears to be at the discretion of the organizers, not a competitive or evaluative process. People who are notable may perform/present at Starwood but I feel such performance/presentation is not, of itself, inherently noteworthy or indicative of the performer/presenter's notability. I think this applies as well to the issue of relevance. The circumstantial relevance might apply if the notable and verifiable performer/presenter's career is inextricably tied to Starwood. Some example situations might be having presented/performed there for ten or more years, or as a central organizer of the festival.
On the issue of venue notability, I feel the venue has to have broad social recognition and/or be a touchstone of popular culture. The original Woodstock festival in New York would be one. It was a single venue for three days but its cultural importance is greater than this simple fact would indicate. I haven't looked but I would expect the verifiability of Woodstock's importance is easily documented. I'm not saying venues have to achieve Woodstock's level of cultural importance and significance but I am saying their notability needs to be broadly recognized and verifiable by Wikipedia standards.
I'm not keen on listing everyone who has been on the Starwood program in the Starwood entry. That seems promotional rather than descriptive. A list of 5-10 might be reasonable, a representative selection of performers/presenters. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Pigman regarding notability of performances. However, weakly disagree regarding requirement of "broad" notability for venues. Using an analogy with people rather than venues, a scientist, for example, might be quite notable within his or her science, without receiving recognition within the broader public. That point aside, I also agree with Paul Pigman that listing every individual who appeared at Starwood doesn't seem to enhance that article. --BostonMA talk 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment to BostonMA: I may have gone overboard with using Woodstock as an example, using too large and broad an example for this purpose. I certainly agree that there are events (and people) notable within smaller communities than the mainstream culture deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia. Still, my emphasis is also on verifiable notability, of third party sources beyond the performer and the venue, something I still find lacking in many cases. (If I seem peevish on the subject, it's because I've recently begun noticing how thin supporting documentation can be in Wikipedia entries; this annoys me.) --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, Concur with your clarification. I misinterpretted. Sincerely. --BostonMA talk 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume that this IP is User:BostonMA? - Che 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) - :::::Kept getting bumped out. Not sure why. --BostonMA talk 00:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) - ::::::Just making sure. - Che 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) -
Concur with Pigman and BostonMA. Verifiable third party sources are required to ascertain notability. Neither website of event itself, nor opinion of event organizer, are third party sources. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I Disagree. There is no policy that states that every single datum in an article must cite third party sources to be considered notable enough to be included in the article. Must one demonstrate that the fact that a person was born in 1975 in New York City is notable? How? Must he/she be among the most notable people born that year or in that city? Or must you demonstrate the way being born then and there benefited their carreer, and use a "3rd party source" to do it? There is a difference between determining the notability of a subject and the notability of each fact, and this is, as I've said, too high a bar to set. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I thought that we had just agreed that the festival programs were suitable citations. Are we revisiting this issue? If not, we should only be discussing notablility, not verifiability. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Festival programs verify that an individual made an appearance. They do not verify that the appearance meets Wikipedia standards of notability for inclusion in an article. --BostonMA talk 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - again, I thought we were discussing how to do that. Since I believe it is pretty well known that there are no newspaper articles, etc. I thought we were determining other ways to judge which performers' article merit a mention based to their relative involvement, notability at time of first appearance, whether Starwood helped their career, etc. Just want to make sure this discussion stays on track and does not carelessly add criteria beyond those actually being discussed. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment When an appearance is written up in a newspaper, that gives some evidence of notability. Perhaps not enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia, but it is some evidence. The absense of mention by any outside source also seems to be a sort of evidence. It raises significant doubt about the notability of an appearance. --BostonMA talk 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just outlining what was brought up above, Ekajati. It seems to me that the major question of this case is whether X person's appearance at Y event (in this case, Starwood) is significant enough to warrant mention in his article, and vice versa. This is what seems to need consensus. - Che Nuevara 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The absence of a newspaper article demonstrates nothing. A notable fact need not be newsworthy. Also, this event (like most Neo-Pagan events, especially clothing-optional ones) is not accessible to the press. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the issues being discussed here are, in my opinion, logically faulty. I understand the desire to only have ARTICLES on notable subjects, but to require each datum within that article to pass a similar notability test (and be reported on in a newspaper!) is not only non-productive but not encyclopedic. I've never seen an encyclopedia that is written that way, and a see no value in requiring articles to be terse, minimalistic, and incomplete.
Comment. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is policy. --BostonMA talk 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And an appearance at a non-notable event is probably not a piece of information worthy of being included, although I would have to judge on a case-to-case basis. But this is a NOTABLE event, and as I've said, the most notable in its genre. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • First, what is the value of listing only information that is "broadly recognized" or has "broad social recognition"? Why should an encyclopedia be limited to that which is common knowledge? I go to an encyclopedia for that which I DON'T already know, and I want an article that is as complete as possible. Once an event has passed the notability test, and the subject has as well, why is it suddenly not notable that the artist appeared at that event? WHY must it be proven to help their carreer, or be socially significant, or whatever?
Comment. I think the "broadly recognized" phrase has been clarified. Regarding your last question, see above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is policy. --BostonMA talk 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If everyone here concedes that there is no need for an event to be "broadly recognized" to be a valid inclusion in their article, then I am happy to drop this matter. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • When we list a bibliography, do we list only the "notable" books, or all of them? Does a discography contain only the best-selling records, and would that even be a proper test? What about "most innovative", or "best performed", or featuring the most other notable musicians? Do we even give it a litmus test at all? Should the periodic table article (with its aprox 575 links) list only the elements the general population is familiar with, like iron, sodium, and oxygen, but skip gallium, iridium, and osmium as non-notable because only a small percentage of people are aware of them or have an interest in them?
Comment. In answer to this question, see the Mozart article. We do not list all of Mozart's works. However, we certainly don't mention all of the venues that have featured the Rolling Stones. --BostonMA talk 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason NOT to list all Mozart's works or all the Rolling Stones' appearances if some editor chooses to add them to the articles and verify them, IMO. But that doesn't apply to this question, since this is a notable event for all the reasons I've mentioned. By the same logical arguments you have been presenting, the fact that no one has included a fact in another article does not support the notion that this fact should be barred from these articles.Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say that some features that lend notability to an event would be (but perhaps not be limited to) it's size (both independently and compared to others of its kind), how well known it is (both generally and within it's audience), how long it has existed (especially without a break), whether it provides a useful function in its community (say, is it purely entertainment-oriented, or educational, or have a spiritual aspect), whether it brings in outsiders and promotes either greater membership in the communities it serves or understanding outside of them, whether it broke ground in what such an event can acheive, its "production values", the scope of the services it provides its attendees, and of course the notability and numbers of the speakers and entertainers it features. (Articles and books mentioning the event can lend support to, but not create, notability.)
  • If an author and/or lecturer appears as a featured speaker at an event that is the best-known, biggest, and among the longest-running of its genre', why is that not notable, assuming both the subject and the event ARE? These bars seem to be new, absurdly high, and not set for other data in other articles. (I must say, with all due respect, that it seems some folks have decided the entries should not be there, THEN looked for a rationale to support this, one that has changed several times.) Is it MORE notable if the subject appears at other such events, or less? (I was criticized about Stewart Farrar on one basis, Michael T. Gilbert on the other.) Must he/she appear more than once? What if, as with Olatunji and Terence McKenna, they pass away too soon (both were booked for return engagements)? Their first appearance there, or at such a venue, or for such an audience? Or their best attended? How many classes they offered? Their connection to the group, or LACK of connection?
I am going to ask the mediator to remove your comments that suggest bad faith. They are not helpful. --BostonMA talk 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize to anyone who took my general statement personally. I did not mean to assert that there was an INTENTIONAL attempt to contest posted information without what those doing it consider a good reason. However, I do see that this mediation has strayed from a discussion of the validity of the citations and links that inspired it to issues of POV, conflict of interest, whether the event is commercial or not, and whether those appearing there are paid or not and in what manner. None of this is in keeping with the list of pertinent issues Che offered at the onset of the mediation. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, some information just isn't covered in a newspaper. There are articles concerning the Masons, the Golden Dawn, the OTO, and other groups that discuss individuals' training and history. It is pretty unlikely that one could point to a newspaper article backing them up, and a book reference is likely to have been written by someone whose involvement can be challenged on POV issues (since who else would be privy to the info?). But I don't think we can ignore the subjects because they are not part of pop culture. Newsworthy and notable are NOT synonymous.
I am not aware that anyone is claiming that newsworthyness and notability are synonymous. Rather, there have been statements of agreement that the two are not synonymous. It is not helpful to argue over points upon which there is agreement. Newspaper articles provide some evidence of notability. The absense of newspaper articles demonstrate a lack of such evidence. Arguments are not evidence, and a number of editors feel that it is important to provide evidence that certain facts are notable enough to warrent mention in an article. --BostonMA talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It seemed to me that the repeated talk about newspaper articles did, indeed, imply that for a fact to be considered notable a newspaper or magazine article needed to be cited. But, again, if you are conceding that this is not so, perhaps we are making progress. And, no, I do not accept that the absence of such an article is evidence of anything. It could, for instance, simply mean that the perfectly notable event was not open to the press, or a host of other things. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As to verifiability, I don't see how the campaign to ELIMINATE the citations helped verify the facts, if this is really what was intended. And as far as what the sum total of people appearing tells us that a qualitative description doesn't, my attempts to include a qualitative description (with features of the event) were attacked by the same people as being ad-like and promotional. I don't see how the presenters at an event DON'T lend notability to that event. And I don't see how having this venue among their credits doesn't add to the breadth of their carreer descriptions.
The fact that a particular qualitative description was criticized for being ad-like, does not answer the question of whether a list of all persons who were featured at a festival is more appropriate to an article than a qualitative description of the article. A recurring type of argument in this mediation is
"We should to A, because when I did B, I was criticized for it"
I don't find such arguments helpful. --BostonMA talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the spirit of Wikipedia is to provide good, complete articles. If a notable event can't be verified one way, SOME way should be acceptable. I find that shooting down descriptions of the event for one reason, lists of those appearing there for another, citations for a third, and so on is what's not helpful. There is no contest being run between the appropriatness of "a list of featured artists" and "a qualitative description". Probably, the article should have BOTH! And again, I'm sorry if I keep being forced to repeat myself, but the article does not even come CLOSE to having "a list of all persons who were featured at the festival". Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Pigman's statement "Selection appears to be at the discretion of the organizers, not a competitive or evaluative process" is untrue: selection is based on committee evaluation based on submissions during the past year, and takes into consideration training, background, certification, and all the aspects you would expect it to. Nor would this mean anything, IMO: Woodstock booked acts based on "the discretion of the organizers", as did the Monterey Pop Festival, Newport Jazz Festival, and most notable venues including the cirricula of universities and the appointments to the President's cabinet. Pigman also states "The circumstantial relevance might apply if the notable and verifiable performer/presenter's career is inextricably tied to Starwood", yet would he not then question POV and conflict of interest? (I have been plagued with the suggestion of such contradictory litmus tests.) And believe me: these articles don't even come CLOSE to "listing every individual who appeared at Starwood". Where does Pigman get this "A list of 5-10 might be reasonable" figure? It seems to simply have been made up. (I could delete all the speakers that have NOT passed notability independently, but that would not reduce the links, which I thought this mediation was all about in the first place.)
If selection for appearance at Starwood festivals is subject to some sort of peer review, then that is a significant fact, and provides some evidence of noteworthyness. Thank you for bringing it up. If you have more such evidence, please present it. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I know about the organization and structure of Starwood, what Rosencomet is referring to as "committee evaluation" is the same process employed by any commercial event in deciding who to hire. A discussion among the organizers about who to hire is not the same as peer review. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't see any reason to assume you have any knowledge of the organization and structure of Starwood or ACE at all. Nor had I ever mentioned "peer review"; that's not the same as a "committee evaluation". Nor is whether the event is commercial an issue: there are articles about IBM, XEROX, and many other commercial ventures, and people with articles about them that have had high-ranking positions in such companies have mention of the fact in their bios. This is exactly what I meant about extraneous issues being introduced. I do not consider it a demostration of not assuming good faith to point out a repeated tendedncy that, IMO, distracts from the issues at hand. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But consider this: if the biggest, best-known, most diverse, and among the oldest Neo-Pagan event (and it is more than that) is NOT notable, you are saying that NO NEO-PAGAN EVENT IS. They are not reported in the media; most of them FORBID access to the press! All mentions of such events would have to be culled from Wikipedia articles. In fact, to be fair, all special interest groups of ANY kind should go the same way, no matter how important simple logic shows them to be to the subject's resume', unless someone reported it (yet presumably any publicity-hog or self-promoter who gets a reporter to attend his appearance is suddenly more "notable" than the rest). Rosencomet 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No-one is claiming that "the biggest, best-known, most diverse, etc. event is not notable". It is not helpful to argue over points upon which there is agreement. The question is whether a particular appearance warrants mention in a particular article. --BostonMA talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If these points are not brought up again, I will gladly stop arguing them. I see a connection between whether an event is notable and whether mentioning a subject's appearance there is notable. I find that self-evident. I can understand the request for documentation, but not the insistence that the documentation should be deleted along with the contention that there should be no link between artist and venue. I'm not sure Pigman considers the issue as settled as you seem to. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Rosencomet, no offense, but I think that your verbosity and fanaticism about this matter indicate that you cannot maintain a neutral point of view. Perhaps you should clearly state - for the record - exactly what position you hold with these groups. Better yet, rather than derailing this process even further with more Hegelian dialectics and long drawn out semantic discussions, why not email the mediator your personal information and let him look into whether you have a conflict of interest or not, without divulging your personal information to the rest of those involved. I know you feel very strongly about this, but you appear to be nothing more than a promoter of a commercial event. - WeniWidiWiki 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree with WeniWidiWiki. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with WeniWidiWiki. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Somewhat agree with WeniWidiWiki that Rosencomet may not be able to maintain NPOV on this subject. However, I must decry the use of phrases such as "fanaticism" and "derailing this process even further with more Hegelian dialectics and long drawn out semantic discussions." These are not civil or appropriate. If Rosencomet feels it necessary to discuss the issue at length and in detail, I don't think it's appropriate to respond with dismissive and sarcastic characterizations.
    Septegram 15:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Septegram's comment with respect to civil language. --BostonMA talk 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree (hangs head in shame) in regard to civil language. Although it might be noted that I believe many of Rosencomet's points have been made by him previously and I know I feel some frustration because of this. Still no cause for incivility. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid that I do take offense. "verbosity and fanaticism"? "derailing this process"? "Hegelian dialectics and long drawn out semantic discussions"? "nothing more than a promoter of a commercial event"? Yes, I do take offense, at this and other comments you have made here and elsewhere questioning my motives, challenging my right to argue my position as I see fit, and distracting the discussion into extraneous issues. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I call it as I see it. This is a clear-cut issue, and by having protracted discussions about false corollaries and semantic issues it has devolved into a Hegelian dialectic. Also, what I perceive as your fanaticism is duly provable by merely looking at your edit history. You seem to edit with one singular goal in mind. You evaded the most relevant aspect of my comment: Perhaps you should clearly state - for the record - exactly what position you hold with these groups. - Whether you are a promoter, and therefore have a conflict of interest, has a lot to do with whether your opinions is even relevant, and whether you can maintain NPOV. Pages and pages and pages of text and hours of time have been wasted discussing an issue which I think is very clear-cut. - WeniWidiWiki 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Devolved"? According to the Wiki page on the subject, "The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion." Well, we can't have any of THAT going on! :-) Rosencomet 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Clearly Rosencomet sees it as either less clear-cut than you do, or sees it as equally clear-cut but in the opposite direction. In either case, name-calling and pejorative remarks like "fanatic" (Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. The difference between a fan and a fanatic is that while both have an overwhelming liking or interest in a given subject, behaviour of a fanatic will be viewed as violating prevailing social norms, while that of a fan will not violate those norms (although is usually considered unusual)) are not appropriate: one of the goals of this whole Starwood discussion seems to be what those "social norms" are and whether Rosencomet has violated them.
I can't say whether "Hegelian dialectic" is pejorative, since it's something beyond my pitiful level of education, but it certainly sounds dismissive of Rosencomet's arguments. "Calling it like you see it" is not an excuse for incivility; if it were, several people on Wikipedia would have felt the rough edge of my metaphorical tongue, including some who have been involved in this very issue.
That said, I think you have a valid suggestion when you say "Perhaps you should clearly state - for the record - exactly what position you hold with these groups. - Whether you are a promoter, and therefore have a conflict of interest, has a lot to do with whether your opinions is even relevant, and whether you can maintain NPOV." On the other hand, if you feel the time and space has been wasted, perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere.
Septegram 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Septegram is correct. Thank you, Sept, and I apologize for not picking up on this comment earlier (see final exam and influenza). WWW, you do raise a valid point about Rosencomet's connection to the subject matter; however, this does not excuse incivility and namecalling.
Rosencomet, your connection to this event is relevant to the discussion, if only in a small way, and WWW, civility is necessary, even if you have criticisms of other editors. - Che Nuevara 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Finals and the flu? Owie. Septegram 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am reluctant to divert this into a discussion of whether a person who is close enough to a subject to know what he's talking about is therefor too close to be objective, as I have been involved in such discussions before and have found them to be unproductive. I will say this: ACE is an LLC created by a group called the Chameleon Club, of which I am a member among equals. ACE is not-for-profit; all funds that come in are used for programming, and NO ONE IS PAID, including myself. ACE has not, however, sought official non-profit tax status, so it pays sales tax, and it does not solicit donations. I am an ACE volunteer, one of dozens, and have been one for a long time. (Starwood has literally HUNDREDS of unpaid contributors.) I am neither in charge of P.R. or promotion, nor even on those committees. I have NO STAKE in the success of the events; I make my living in a quite different and unrelated way. I have at times called myself a "director"; ANYONE working on an ACE project can call themselves a director of one sort or another (and several do) if it will help them accomplish the task and no other volunteer staff member objects. It is neither an elected nor appointed position.
    • I have often worked on providing text for such projects as the program booklets (I am one of the better writers), which is why I had access to the past biographical "blerbs" that inspired me to write articles about certain individuals in those records that I thought were notable. I thought I could use that access to provide a service to the Wiki community, once I became acquainted with it. These paragraphs were often barely good enough to be "stubs" (none, for instance, contained discographies or bibliographies), but I have gone on to learn what is needed and supplement them with further research; and, of course, many already had articles that I simply contributed to. I gained nothing by doing so. Others have helped me do this, and helped format the contributions correctly. I have also created and/or contributed to articles that are NOT linked to Starwood, just because I considered the subjects and/or the info I had to contribute notable (for example, Paul Beyerl and Annie Sprinkle), and I hope to continue to do so. Rosencomet 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not the first time WeniWidiWiki has levied the accusation that someone was being "fanatically protective" when they objected to their work being deleted. The same thing happened to Adityanath in relation to an article about the OTO. Rosencomet 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Rosencomet, it is difficult to assume good faith when you do not answer questions in a direct or forthright manner. On your talk page you first identified yourself as the director of this event. You said: "I am the director of a group that has hosted appearances by Mike many times over the last 25 years." When the conflict of interest issue was first raised, by multiple other editors, you indicated that you were the director of ACE, now you attempt to redefine "director" and downplay your earlier statements. With all due respect, your answers have been inconsistent, and a question asked of you directly by the mediator and multiple other editors is not a "diversion". When you registered an account with Wikipedia, you chose the screen name "Rosencomet" which is the official name of the director(s) of ACE. You immediately began the massive linking and promotion of ACE events. The Conflict of Interest matter is central to this dispute, and it does not help your case to continually sidestep it. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Additionally, you were asked directly, "Are you Jeff Rosenbaum?" and as far as I can tell, you never answered. And before you try to derail this by saying a Matisse sockpuppet asked the question: Who asked the question is irrelevant. What matters is the answer. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - I would also like to ask Rosencomet: Are all of the people and groups you have listed as "performers" and "presenters" at ACE events (Starwood, Winterstar, etc...) formally hired and paid for their work? Or are some compensated for their work by free admission to the festival? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some are formally hired, some are merely given free entrance. Some have been offered payment but have refused it, either as a sign of support of the event, or because their spiritual path forbids accepting compensation for teaching it. Some get free entrance plus travel expenses, some require other funds for special expenses. Some even charge the class participant an extra fee directly, usually for materials (like the drum making class). It's very individual. All presenters can be seen at least once during the event by the participants without paying an additional charge. If a speaker charges for a special advanced workshop, they ALSO offer a class which is free to any participant. None of which, IMO, is relevant to the issue of whether the links and citations are/were proper or not. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn raises a valid point above which would be useful to discuss. What in the life of a particular person (who has already been deemed notable for whatever reason) is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Obviously, there are facts about any given person's life which are known by biographers or whomever which are not in his Wikipedia article. In this particular case, as Kathryn pointed out: Are all matters of employ noteworthy? If so, why? If not, why not? - Che Nuevara 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Same position as before. A minor star's appearance is major for that star since they are a minor star. A major star's appearance is not noteworthy in that star's article, but would be quite noteworthy in Starwood's article. A simple categorization just isn't possible imho. Wjhonson 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an appearance at the Starwood Festival is notable, because it is the leading event in it's genre, because of its uniqueness, and other factors I've already offered. I think a list of notable lecturers and entertainers lends notability to the description of any venue. I see no reason at all not to link the two. In general, I think that employment somewhere is a hard thing to set a bar for. Off the top of my head, some inclusions are obvious: if it is what the subject is best known for, if the subject was there for a long time, if the place of employment is in itself notable, if it led to opportunities that helped shape their carreers, if they played a part in the employer's history, if it says something about the fields the subject is involved with or has experience in, if they've written books and/or otherwise distinguished themselves in the same field, etc, etc.
What's harder to decide is when a fact should be FORBIDDEN, and whether such a policy makes the article less complete without there being any compensating value to its removal. I simply don't agree with the notion that nothing should be allowed that is not necessary; I think "valuable" is enough to be acceptable. I think that bar has been accepted when it comes to many other types of data, and I question why appearance at a venue (especially the biggest, etc) or, as Che asks, employment somewhere should be excepted. Rosencomet 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment to CheNuevara's question: I have to partially agree with Wjhonson about the categorization but I think it's difficult at best to attempt a qualitative analysis of the relative importance of an appearance at a venue to a performer/presenter's career. Without supporting documentation or sources, the process would be impractical, unencyclopedic, and probably a moving target depending on original research. My gut feeling is that all matters of employ are NOT noteworthy. As to which details of employ are worth noting in an article, I'm unable to answer with any certainty. Beyond needing third-party, verifiable sources to confirm the employ, assessing the particular significance to the performer's career seems difficult to quantify with any consistency. Unless we rely on published biographies and newspaper/magazine reports, it seems like original research. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break

Let's keep in mind that, even though we're discussing a few abstract issues, there are two very concrete (and seemingly different) questions which, at the end of the proverbial day, need to be answered:

  1. Should Starwood be mentioned in Person X's article?
  2. Should Person X be mentioned in Starwood's article?

It seems to me that nobody is arguing against the notability of Starwood or of the people linked with the article whom have already been deemed notable. The issue at hand is strength of relative importance. Relative importance is directional. In some cases relative importance of performers can be easily established; The Stone Pony is quite clearly important to Bruce Springsteen and vice versa: the two names are inextricably linked. On the other hand, while playing Stage Two at Ozzfest is no doubt significant for any minor band, any given Stage 2 band is arguably insignificant to Ozzfest. In the contrapositive, The Rolling Stones have played so many venues over the last 45 years that listing them all would be simply trivial. (I realize, by the way, that Starwood is not solely a music venue, but these sorts of comparisons seemed apt to me anyway.) Firstly, does everyone agree with this line of reasoning? Secondly, if everyone does agree with this reasoning, how can we apply it to Starwood? If you disagree, what line of reasoning would you offer in its stead? - Che Nuevara 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to do so, but I do find some problems with this reasoning. For one thing, it seems one would have to keep changing articles based on how well known subjects & venues become in order to accomodate their changing relative notarieties. Also, I think that in some cases the uniqueness of a venue must be taken into consideration, and its identification with a community or issue, and what that says about the subject. To use a prior example, an appearance by a politician at Bob Jones University or at an event sponsored by the Gay Activists' Alliance, even a single appearance, says something notable about the subject. It may be quite as important as a connection already common knowledge, like Wavy Gravy's connection to Woodstock. (As I've said, telling the reader what he does NOT already know has value in an encyclopedia.)
Also, though it may be true that relative importance is directional, it may be so subjective that a hard-fast rule is nigh impossible to create. (The fact that others have not contributed facts of a similar notability "level" should not, IMO, be a factor; they are free to do so.) I wonder which better serves Wikipedia: allowing a fact that is not in question but some might consider insufficiently notable, or barring such a fact? Is it more important for articles to be complete (and include information of interest to both the general and specific researcher), or to stomp out any datum that may not pass notability muster in an already-notable article. (Remember: some articles actually have sections entitled "Trivia"!)
However, I can't see ANY value in barring mention of any notable individual in the Starwood article. One might question whether to list non-notable individuals, but notable ones both lend notability to the event and are as important to an event as a bibliography to an author or a discography to a recording artist. (And, IMO, appearances at notable venues, especially unique ones, are important to the bios of lecturers and performing artists.) Rosencomet 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Che's summary above. Rosencomet raises as an objection that Che's approach requires the encyclopedia to evolve over time. I don't regard the need to evolve as objectionable. Rosencomet also suggests an analogy with a politician visiting Bob Jones University. However, the analogy is raised in a hypothetical fashion. If there is an individual whose appearance at Starwood is particularly notable, then, of course, it ought to be mentioned. However, the possibility that a particular appearance might be notable, doesn't support mention of any particular link. If there is evidence that a particular appearance is notable, I would like to see that evidence, and not merely a hypothetical argument that such appearances "could" be notable. Finally, in most articles about venues, we do not list all of the notable performers who have made an appearance at that venue. Someone may argue that this is a shortcoming of Wikipedia. I do not think it is. But let us follow the argument for a moment. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If there is a shortcoming, then there should be collaboration to fix that shortcoming. Whether accurately or otherwise, the impression that I personally have, is that the argument in favor of "links to all notable performers" is not meant as a call to organize an effort to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. Rather, the argument seems to be raised primarily for the purpose of allowing an extensive list of performers at one particular venue. --BostonMA talk 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] summation of a number of the comments in RfC and prior attempt at mediation

Che asked: 1. Should Starwood be mentioned in Person X's article? 2. Should Person X be mentioned in Starwood's article?

I believe this has already been addressed, and is being addressed above, as well as in the RfC and the previous "mediation". I don't think we need to re-state our positions on this. But for the record, this is what I said in the RfC:

Comment - I think the Starwood linkage is a clear case of linkspam to a commercial site, and that the internal linkspam is as inappropriate as the external linkspam. Both should be deleted, except in the very few cases where something about Starwood may be crucial to the biography of a person who is otherwise notable on their own merits. Starwood, while probably small-pond notable enough for an article itself, is not notable enough to add to the bios of otherwise notable people. See also comments here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:19, 4 December 2006

Editors Mattisse, Matthew Brown (Morven), WeniWidiWiki and Alison agreed with the above statement. In addition Guy added: I completely agree with BostomMA's comment above: a link to Starwood (whether internal or external) should only be included if it can be verified from secondary sources that the article subject's involvement with Starwood is considered notable either by them or by neutral third parties independent of both Starwood and the subject (the New York Times, for example). I am not opposed in principle to using Rosencomet's links as support for the appearance, should said appearance be deemed notable, but I am very lukewarm on that since throughout this the overwhelming impression, rightly or wrongly, is that Rosencomet is engaged in astroturfing of his own festival.

In addition, I add, per Pigman that the list of performers on the Starwood and ACE articles themselves need to be limited so it doesn't simply serve, as WeniWidiWiki aptly put it, as "a link farm."

Additionally, In my statements I've been tending to use "Starwood" as a catch-all when really the appropriate phrase would be "Starwood, Winterstar, and other ACE events." I expect the results of this mediation and RfA to be applied to all of the above, not just Starwood.

I would also ask that responses to this summation be placed below this line, and not interjected throughout the above post, so as to maintain clarity of statement. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


It's really an unacceptable extension of how notability should and should not be used. This is simply not the way in which we've been editing for years and it would set an extremely bad precendent to start now. Notability is a guideline, not a policy for one. Forcing an editor who has primary, verifiable documentation to use secondary due to mediation would go far beyond the way we've been operating on WP:V and WP:RS. And forcing the use of "independent third-parties" also overreaches the mark. So no I'm not down with this. The appearances are verifiable, that should be enough. Wjhonson 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Question. Wjhonson, could you clarify how you would determine what is worthy of mention in the Starwood related articles and what is not worthy of mention? Thanks. --BostonMA talk 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree I'm not sure about the propriety of doing an additional summation after CheNuevara's recent summation directly above but I still think Kathryn NicDhàna's statement is a good idea and I agree with it. A problem I'm beginning to have, from the repetition of themes and arguments already trod through earlier in these discussions, is a feeling of endless futility. I do not blame CheNuevara for this but it is affecting my attention to this matter. Even when CheNuevara fairly succinctly summarizes the issue, as in the previous section above, I find Rosencomet's response to it argumentative and deflective from the issue and questions as stated. This muddies the waters, dilutes focus from central issues. This has been a regular pattern of Rosencomet's in my observation. I do not believe such responses serve the discussion or its mediated resolution. I'm frustrated by the situation and I doubt I am the only one. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, in the article or articles about Starwood itself, I see no problem with mentioning every person who appeared. We certainly have articles on events which mention for example, every Olympic athlete in an event. However, let's have a concrete example. Let's say Bonzo the Giant Clown made an appearance, and Bonzo is a rather minor person. Notable and yet not anything major. Let's say his article here, is only 50 words. For him, the appearance is "major" as he himself is "minor". However if Graham Nash made an appearance, it's minor because it's not notable in his own career. That's been my position from the beginning, its a case-by-case basis. However my objection above BostonMA was not to mention-of-appearance, but rather to the overly harsh requirement imposed for verification of appearance or verification of notability of appearance. I believe that sort of requirement must come *from* WP:V and WP:Notability, not from a mediation. Wjhonson 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
My question is this. If we need to distinguish Bonzo the Giant Clown from Graham Nash, how do we do so, other than to look at third party sources? Do we take ACE/Starwood/Rosencomet's word for the significance of an appearace in the career of a performer? Something else? I'm just wondering how things would work in practice if we don't rely on third party sources. --BostonMA talk 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Like all conflicts, its a case-by-case situation. The way you determine whether the appearance by Bonzo is notable enough for his own article, is on his own Talk page. Which is the same way you'd determine whether the appearance of Graham Nash is notable enough for mention on his own page, by refereeing it on his own Talk page. Remembering that merely mentioning that someone appeared is not the same as stating "...he made a glorious entrance in a full-length gown...". Unusual claims require more strict use of sources. This mediation however is only addressing whether an appearence is notable or not on the star's own page. The mention of an appearance is to my mind, a non-controversial fact. The organizers of Starwood certainly would not make-up fictitious appearances by major names. Wjhonson 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is claiming it is controversial. The primary contention is that it is not useful in a meaningful way. Even if it is a demonstrable fact that a minor performer appeared at an event, does adding that information to the event's article add anything real to the article? Conversely, does adding a minor venue to a major performer's article add anything to that performer's article? - Che Nuevara 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • undent* And are you equally as adamant about removing trivial works from the Works lists of author and non-steller recordings from the works lists of bands? If you aren't then I submit that the article on Starwood itself can list every appearance by every stage presence ever. Where is the harm? We have pages that list every minor athlete who competed in the Olympics under every event. Is their competition in itself important? No. Today nobody has any idea who the people are, and yet we have them listed. We have lists of every person who appeared on "The Real World" even though today 90% of them are nobodies. And it's a red herring to ask if we should list this venue under major stars articles. Nobody (or perhaps only one) is suggesting we do so. In a way doing so is promotional for Starwood and perhaps nothing else, so yes I'd support not listing it as a venue for major stars in their own articles. However I see nothing wrong with the Starwood article listing every appearance by anybody. Wjhonson 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not adamant about anything except the wiki-process. But you bring up a good point, which is that the Olympic athlete pages are a separate article. Are you suggesting a separate List of Starwood Festival guests? That is perhaps a suggestion that merits some consideration. - Che Nuevara 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There could be sure. If that would satisfy everyone's aim. I'm not against having a seperate article listing the guests. Maybe seperate articles for each year. I have no idea how big they'd be, as I really have no idea really what Starwood is or isn't, nor how many stage acts they sponsor or invite or what-have-you. I submit that the Miss California page lists every Miss California ever, even though they themselves, outside of that title, are non-notable before and after the title. Some of them have small notations of other things they are slightly notable for, but the majority do not themselves warrant their own articles. Wjhonson 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comparing a small, private gathering like Starwood to international events like the Olympics, or internationally televised shows like The Real World, or even locally-televised events such as Miss California, is extremely inaccurate. An additional ACE/Starwood/Winterstar article is not something that would satisfy those who believe the event has already been blown out of proportion on Wikipedia. Wjhonson, may I suggest you familiarize yourself with the festival and its parameters? While small-pond notable, it's not Woodstock, nor a local Lollapalooza - it's a camping event for approximately "1,200 to 1,500" people. And many of the "stars" perform only to a handful of attendees. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100% with the above statement by Kathryn NicDhàna. Those of us who see Starwood as engaging in organised link spam are not going to feel that the creation of yet another article of links, a list of links, is any kind of solution. Mattisse 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very unthrilled with the idea of an additional article for the performers/presenters. I think these links have already grown far beyond any reasonable level. The addition of another article inflates the linkage even more. And I have seen lists of performers/presenters and the numbers of them literally go into the hundreds on their web site. Those numbers are not because it's a large event but because there are many, many small workshops throughout these yearly events. A "presenter" might only have three people in their workshop. Yes, some presenters attract a large audience but I suspect many have few or, some, perhaps even no attendants at their workshops. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And yet "Starwood Festival" gets 13 thousand google hits. How is it possible that a local "camping event" generates so many hits? And before you argue this is global link-spamming, that argument is fallacious and self-serving. To my eye, the Festival is notable, far in excess of wikidemands. We have article on people, places and things with far fewer hits. I am not the one who suggested the seperate article, but its beginning to feel a bit irrational to claim that the article itself cannot list who appeared in its own article-space. And again, we have *mention* of works that sold very few copies. They don't have their own articles, but they are mentioned in other articles. If wikipedia is supposed to be the "sole total of all knowledge" then the appearance of Bonzo the Clown is part of that knowledge. Perhaps a very obscure footnote, but still a part. Wjhonson 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I have never claimed Starwood is unnotable or doesn't deserve a WP article. My objections are mainly to what I see as a constant expanding and inflating of its importance through the self-promotional efforts of one person: Rosencomet. This, as well as the edit warring and labeling of those challenging the links as "vandals" by defenders of the links, is not conducive to my favorable opinion. I try to judge the links by relative importance and pertinence to the subject article they are placed within. By that standard, I judge the vast majority of them self-serving rather than illuminating and expanding understanding of the subjects. By the same token, a list of hundreds of names and groups in the Starwood article seems vastly overinclusive for the relative merits of the article. Where is the balance? That is part of what this debate is intended to sort out. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

Can you point to where this idea that there would be hundreds of entries comes from? And if you could be as exact and specific as possible that would help your argument. Otherwise it sounds like hyperbole. Wjhonson 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a concept in jurisprudence called a prior restraint offense, which says basically that an item has to actually be published before it can be ruled on. I'm not sure this offense of creating an article with "hundreds of entries" has been committed yet. Wjhonson 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, visit the roster from 1981-1996. While there are a fair number of duplicate appearances, particularly in the first eight or nine years, by 1991 many new people were presenting every year. I believe that trend has continued to the present day. I think "hundreds" is an accurate assessment of the total different presenters/performers. Since these articles have tended to become every more inclusive and expansive, I think my concern that Rosencomet would expand to that level is valid. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought that we were talking about the Starwood article, not articles. Wasn't your concern that the Starwood article would have hundreds of "presenters" listed ? If that wasn't it, then can you clarify what your concern was? There are other precedents for dealing with overly long articles. I still am not seeing the need for mediation on the Starwood article at this point, and I hope we're pretty well along in finding a middle-ground for the links. So maybe you could clarify what more we need to do on *currently existing situations*. Mediation really isn't for potential situations that have not yet occurred. Wjhonson 06:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Wjhonson, and add that IMO the issue has been overblown from the beginning. Many times these articles have been described as having been "taken over by Starwood", when only a few words are on them simply saying that the person appeared, or performed, or lectured at the event. In about half the cases, the article was written by me in the first place, and though I know that writing an article is no license to add whatever you want to it, no one up until now bothered to create an article at all (or expand them beyond just a stub) for many of these quite notable individuals. I have, and included bibliographies, discographies, biographical material, and whatever it took to bring the article up to Wiki standards, and have improved just as many articles others have created (INCLUDING "Starwood Festival" and "Association for Consciousness Exploration"), and have done so with a few articles unrelated to Starwood and ACE at all.
There are not "hundreds" of links to the Starwood page, or even one hundred, if you don't count links to talk pages where this issue has been discussed. There's a reason for this: I don't consider every person who has appeared at Starwood to be notable, either, and made no attempt to list them all. Also, some names I put up as a stub and it took time to revisit them to make the entry into an acceptable article. Also, I didn't establish every link, and some of them are not there just because of an appearance. Some are also backed up by articles, book references, and interviews in print or on line. The ACE page is linked to less than 20, and several of those links are not because of a simple appearance at an event.
This discussion, and the arbitration that Pigman has opened, keeps avoiding any constructive guidelines about when a link or external link citation is proper, and keeps either becoming about me and what certain people perceive as my motivations, or simply a repeat of subjective judgements, along the lines of: It obviously isn't notable to me, or this is obviously excessive, or I judge this to be self-serving.
Pigman has voiced his frustration and futility over not having gotten 100% of his own way. Imagine it from my point of view. After months of harassment from a small army of sockpuppets of matisse (who, I see, is back in the conversation), I (with help from others) have added citations to all the links, then had them deleted, then had them called linkspam and googlebombing (a word I never heard of before and, since this event was by far the biggest result when google-searching the words "Starwood Festival" before I ever inputted ANYTHING to Wikipedia, I can't see how it could apply), and now all the external links have been taken down (leaving the facts uncited, an issue I still have heard no conclusive statement about the LACK of need for). These deletions were not selective about the kind of speaker or the number of times he/she appeared or even if there were articles published or other websites mentioning the appearance cited: they were wholesale. And while this has gone on, one fairly objective voice has suddenly retired in a cloud of rumors of threats, and another has publically stated that he was "intimidated off the case" and has now opted to "vanish". I am VERY nervous about repercussions under the circumstances, though I have NEVER messed with anyone elses' articles; merely tried to preserve what I consider a contribution to Wiki, and compromise when I could.
I have helped put material up, take it down, rewrite text when it was challenged as "too promotional" or "ad-like", and tried to comply with whatever it took to make the situation correct except eliminating all the links; links I think are proper in the first place.
So let's get together on some of this:

1. Are we done asking if the event is notable in the first place, or will we keep revisiting the issue?

  • I think we have pretty much accepted that it is notable.

2. Have we agreed that IF a citation is desired and/or required, that it is appropriate to cite the program of the event simply to assert that the person did, indeed, appear at that place and time? Or do we have to keep revisiting THAT issue?

  • Issues of whether that makes it notable set aside, I think we generally are in agreement that IF a citation is needed JUST to assert that the appearance took place, a link to the program is a valid one.

3. Is it or isn't it a violation of Wiki policy to have a list of past speakers and/or entertainers on the page of a notable event? Not "do you like it", or "would you have done it that way", or "do you consider the number of them excessive". Is such a list against the rules in and of itself? And if it is not against the rules, what RULE covers the number of names on such a list?

  • There are others far better aquainted with the rules, but I have seen plenty of lists on other articles (which, of course, is not proof that it is proper) of "public appearances" or "media appearances" or performances or venues appeared at. I contend that for an event that features speakers and entertainers, a list of them (especially those notable enough to have their own articles) is comparable to a bibliography on an author's article or a discography on a recording artist's article.

4. Is it a violation of Wiki policy to list the fact that a speaker/entertainer has appeared at an event as part of their article?

If the answer is no, and NOT just for Starwood, please explain what RULE it violates.
If the answer is "yes in some cases, no in others", please provide a SPECIFIC guideline, not just a vague "if it's important enough", and please make it a guideline that applies GENERALLY, not some special rule that you want articles linked to Starwood to follow but don't apply to any other articles' links.
If the answer is yes, please state for the record whether you think a citation is needed or even desired.
  • My assessment is that if a person is a lecturer, listing a venue notable enough to have a Wiki article (especially the leading event of it's genre) is a proper contribution to that article, and the same goes for entertainers. If someone wants to create a list of ALL notable venues appeared at for an article (like Oberon Zell-Ravenheart did), I see no problem with Starwood being just one of the listed venues, but someone adding one that they can verify should not be required to do so, any more than adding a previously unmentioned book to an author's partial bibliography can only be done if that editor lists EVERY book he/she has written. However, if you believe that it has to be "notable for that speaker", I'd like to hear some CONCRETE way to judge that, one which can be applied GENERALLY. I don't think requiring a newspaper article cuts it, since such events are not reported that way, though they are often VERY important to the subject and his/her career, and I think "a link to the community" is endlessly argumentative. Rosencomet 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"...though I have NEVER messed with anyone elses' articles..."
Rosencomet, I hope you can see why this comment is problematic. The article belongs to Wikipedia as a whole, plain and simple, no two ways about it.
No argument there. I meant that I have not interfered with the work anyone else was trying to do on Wikipedia, NOT that there were articles that were "mine" and articles that were "theirs". Rosencomet 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I also have to say that I think that looking for a general catch-all rule is self-defeating. It has been suggested several times above that these links should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and I think that's the correct way to go about it. Of course there will be some subjectivity to it, but constraining the entire discussion to an arbitrary barrier is unnecessarily limiting and therefore a mediocre solution at best. - Che Nuevara 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You may be right. I was just looking for a way to settle the issue that would allow us all to move on. I, too, would find it hard to come up with such a rule, but I don't want to be eternally engaged in arguments, either. I had links from Paul Krassner deleted, and he's written 2 articles about his Starwood appearances. Ditto Cyro Baptista, and he's got pictures of his workshop at Starwood on his website. Ditto Robert Anton Wilson, who has about 10 ACE event appearances and ACE was his lecture agent for 5 years. Ditto Patricia Monaghan, with over 10. Ditto several speakers for whom Starwood is undoubtably their biggest credit as a speaker (though they are notable for other reasons, like books they've written). I just wanted to get an idea of what others thought made an appearance notable. Rosencomet 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

A few short points.

  1. There are currently 87 links in mainspace articles to Starwood festival [1].
  2. You ask which rules should prevent you from adding links. WP:NOT has been pointed out to you many times. However, there is another guideline which I would like to point out. WP:Consensus. The opinion of the community was clearly expressed in Mattisse's RfC. That really should be the end of the matter. Additionally, your links have been criticized by numerous admins and a member of ArbCom. The phrase "anyone can edit" doesn't mean that editors can disregard the majority and do what they please "as long as there is no rule against it". Even if there were no rules against spam or there was no WP:NOT, you should accept the clear messages that have been given to you by (at this point, countless) editors. --BostonMA talk 02:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I find the above unhelpful. Perhaps you could explain in more clear terms how WP:NOT applies to this particular case. Since you did not link to the previously RfC it's impossible to see what it does or doesn't say. And you didn't link to these various opinions that you cite. And I fail to see how a handful of editors suddenly becomes "countless". Hyperbole really discredits the argument. Wjhonson 03:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


To avoid "Hyperbole", I will begin to a compilation of editors who have given a clear message to rosencomet regarding the links. I will begin with those who agreed to the "Outside view" of the abovementioned RfC, which states in part:

  • All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies.

Users who endorsed:

  1. --Salix alba (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. --BostonMA talk 12:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. --AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. The rosencomet links and Starwood references are as clear a case of spam as one could want, and many of them were added by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) himself, in violation of WP:EL and WP:VAIN. Matisse does not help his case by using socks, though. Guy 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. No comment on the rest, with which I am unfamiliar, but, upon review of the relevant articles, I think that mentions of (and subsequent references to) the Starwood festival are being added to too many articles -- Samir धर्म 05:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Addhoc 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. No direct comment on accusations of sockpuppetry, etc. except a general skepticism, but the mass adding of external links was certainly spamming in action, and User:Rosencomet should not fool himself in believing that whatever Matisse's actions, harassment and blocking of Matisse does NOT absolve him or her of his or her own actions. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. --TomTheHand 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. It doesn't feel like any meaningful attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted. Those "attempts" that were listed above seemed to be more like attempts to incite a dispute rather than resolve it. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. - After having watched blatant link-spamming and the use of Wikipedia by Rosencomet for a text-book Google Bombing campaign for months now, I find this RfC rather self-serving. Read through Rosencomet's edits. I think that this is a pretty blatant effort to neutralize Mattisse for questioning this ongoing spam campaign. Dispute resolution has not been carried through, and apparently this is revenge for attempting to seek mediation in this matter. - WeniWidiWiki 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. An astoundingly nasty situation. I'm particularly struck by the sense that Rosencomet et al, are using mediation not as a forum for compromise and understanding, but as an endurance event, obviously hoping to wear down participants. Between the harassment of other parties and extensive reverts of others' edits and summarizing them as "vandalism", this is one of the nastier fights I've seen on Wikipedia. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who have sent a message to rosencomet regarding linkspam on his talk page include:

  1. User:Netsnipe [2]
  2. User:Project2501a [3]
  3. User:Netsnipe again [4]
  4. User:Hanuman Das [5] -- yes, that's right!
  5. User:Calton [6]
  6. User:BostonMA[7]—Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMA (talk • contribs)
I have also read the mediation page, and it has never been agreed that the external links are not spam. What has been agreed is that if mention of the Starwood festival is appropriate in an article, then external links would be valid citations. However, the crux of the issues is that most of the mentions of the Starwood festival are inappropriate, and thus the external links are linkspam. --BostonMA talk 03:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
First, the above is not any comment I made, perhaps you cut-and-pasted the wrong comment? Wjhonson 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Derail: You are correct and I sincerely apologize. The sloppy formatting and wanton interjections of sections by editors is really confusing things. Again, I apologize for attributing that to you when apparently Ekajati is the one who made that statement. I have removed my statement. - WeniWidiWiki 04:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Second I just took a brief look at *one* of the citations of "link spam" you helpfully posted. Where Hanuman Das posted a comment here. I refer you to his comment which only directs the editor, that he needs a WP:RS. It does not upbraid him for "link spam". He (the editor) does, in fact, by his own statement, have a reliable source. That is, he owns a copy of the program for the event. A program of an event, is a reliable source, for what was supposed to occur at that event, including who was supposed to be presenting. Wjhonson 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. The link that I see begins:
"I also note that you are spamming articles, such as Timothy Leary, with mentions of Association for Consciousness Expansion and Starwood Festival."
Sounds pretty clear to me. --BostonMA talk 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, you are not helping your case by selectively quoting the passage. I'm sure we can all click and read exactly what Hanuman is saying *in context* and understand the point. His point being that the statement needs a WP:RS. Wjhonson 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Third, although Hanuman Das uses the word "spamming", that isn't necessarily a trigger to what wikipedia is trying to prevent by saying "Don't Link Spam". In my opinion, what we are trying to prevent is link spamming which contributes *no useful information*. The links to Starwood, do however, contribute useful information. I reviewed three articles with these "link spams", and they are completely innocuous and unobtrusive. Meanwhile, wikiresources have been consumed for months over what amounts to the addition of perhaps one megabyte to a 500 gigabyte database. Seems like an awfully silly argument in that perspective. All of that energy could have gone into reverting all the instances of "poop" in the database. Wjhonson 04:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Re this by BostonMA - "The phrase "anyone can edit" doesn't mean that editors can disregard the majority and do what they please "as long as there is no rule against it"." Doesn't it? In fact, doesn't "I live in America" mean exactly that? Is it proper for the majority to step on the minority's toes (if indeed there is a majority ratther than "most of the folks who have weighed in here"). Not to be snotty, but I think ganging up on someone and saying "we don't like what you are doing" isn't sufficient. In fact, I think that's part of the problem here - no clear-cut guideline as to what is and isn't allowed in this case. And I agree with Che that it's hard to do, but I don't think the constant cant that I've violated the rules when no clear rule violation can be pointed at about when such links are unacceptable, and no real alternative or compromise is offered, isn't helpful.
How about this: if the speaker is known for addressing audiences and/or writing books on issues of non-mainstream religion/spirituality/magic and/or consciousness exploration or mind-body disciplines, an appearance at Starwood is a notable one for them. An entertainer with links to these issues and/or multi-cultural music/art would also apply. Michael T. Gilbert, for instance, would not. Also, if documentation that they (or some reporter or something) found it notable (like Terence McKenna's interview in the book Tripping by Charles Hayes, or the photos of Halley DeVestern at Starwood with Big Brother) exists, that counts too. If the entertainer also offered classes, this helps support notability. I might have to drop the Starwood mention on Brian Auger's article, for instance, and Armor & Sturdevant (but not the mention of them on the Starwood page), but Halim El-Dabh and Gaelic Storm would be acceptable. Is that at least a reasonable starting point? Rosencomet 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I find that the long list of one-sided opinions cut&pasted by Pigman without the dissenting opinions from the same source is very disengenuous, and another example of stacking the deck to make it seem there is more, and more one-sided, support for the point of view of one side of this issue than the other. And it ignores the question, not of how many people you can get to say "I don't like what so-and-so is doing", but whether it is a violation of rules, and what can be changed to reach a compromise. Is there nothing constructive you can offer, Pigman? Rosencomet 04:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

Rosencomet I feel you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing articles related to Starwood, WinterStar Symposium, ACE LLC, etc. I feel that these edits could be used to further personal interests as well as diminish the efforts of competing enterprises who are not equally represented or promoted on wikipedia. I feel that you should not be participating in deletion discussions, mediations, Arbcom or RfC's on any subject related to these organization due to this conflict of interest. I feel that you should no longer place internal or external links to any related organization or business. My basis for this is clearly explained here: WP:COI. I am formally asking you to stop. The next step is an RfC for consensus on your conflict of interest. - WeniWidiWiki 04:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Agree with WeniWidiWiki's statement. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with WeniWidiWiki's statement. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree with WeniWidiWikis' statement. In addition, as the mediatior has pointed out, Rosencomet appears to have WP:OWN issues that complicate resolution further. Mattisse 05:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Concern - Not placing links or arguing in deletion debates where COI is present is good, but users should never be restricted from responding to RfCs/mediations/etc related to their own practices. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    I encourage everyone to read through WP:COI on this. It's pretty clear on what is acceptable and what is not. - WeniWidiWiki 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    You're right, WWW, it is rather clear, in that it states that users with a conflict of interest should propose changes rather than make them themselves. - Che Nuevara 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree (with the exception that user may participate in RfCs/mediations/arbitrations). User may place information on talk pages and let other editors decide whether to include that information in the article. However, user should not make direct edits where there may be a conflict of interest. --BostonMA talk 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Comment — This page is not about further attempts to attack Rosencomet using procedure. It is about this particular mediation. Attacking is not mediating and I request that all the above verbage be removed per that issue. It's become crystal clear that the above group of editors in no way wishes to "mediate" but rather to "impose" their view. Compelling a person, by force to adopt a view, is not mediation. So I request this meditation be ended, as the above group of agreeing editors is in violation of it's spirit. Wjhonson 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Response, this is not an attack on Rosencomet, but an expression of editors' views regarding appropriate behavior. --BostonMA talk 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Response, oh it's very much an attack using procedure to try to "bully" someone DURING a mediation. I cannot express how cheated I feel, thinking that the participants were actually trying to mediate. During a mediation, to throw NEW boulders at the participants is simply...unbelieveable behaviour. Wjhonson 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to come down in the middle here, as seems to be my job here.

  1. It is, in fact, legitimate to request that an editor, due to a real, demonstrably impacting conflict of interest, not edit an article / articles, at least without prior discussion. However, it seems to me that, at the moment, Rosencomet is not editing Starwood articles, so this point is rather moot at the moment.
  2. I do not believe it is appropriate to request that another user not take part in discussion. Even if you believe that a conflict of interest seriously weighs on that editor's point of view, he is still entitled to express that opinion, so long as he does so in a civil and constructive manner.
  3. Consensus is indeed King on Wikipedia, but dissenters do get an opportunity to express their opinions. I believe that everyone here has expressed his or her opinion as thoroughly and distinctly as possible, so there is no need to hammer your points into the ground.

The situation seems, to me, to be as follows: Rosencomet, it would appear that general consensus is that most of these names and links do not belong, and only those of exceptional note should be included. The burden of proof on Wikipedia lies with inclusion, not exclusion. Policy is interpreted through consensus, and, despite your arguments, however well-formed, the vast majority of editors seem to continue to disagree with you. If the face of consensus against you, in order to continue to include these facts, you need to provide evidence that there there is indeed not consensus against your point. If you can do that, the issue can be discussed further, but given the apparent consensus in the opposite direction, the wiki-process seems to have resolved itself here. I will continue to withhold my opinion on the matter, but this is my objective summation of the sum total of opinion expressed above. I realize there will be multiple people who are unhappy with what I am saying here, but remember, the standard for Wikipedia is not unanimity, but rather broad consensus. - Che Nuevara 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting to note that the very people who started this action have also been engaging in conflict of interest and linkspamming themselves, namely, Paul Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna. See Talk:Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism#Request_for_comments and this link list. I'm beginning to believe that this is simply a feud between rival pagan factions. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Briefly, as this seems done: There is no "feud between rival pagan factions." I had pretty neutral feelings about Starwood/ACE before 999, Hanuman Das and you, Ekajati, started harrassing me after I weighed in on an AfD for one of the non-notable articles Rosencomet created. However, I'm afraid Rosencomet's and your behaviour have affected my feelings about his organizations. For the record, I'd like to point out that Ekajati and someone 999 has rounded up[8] are continuing the harassment with personal attacks [9] and racism [10] as well as targeting articles I've worked on. Not that I'm surprised. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ekajati, do you have a response to what I said? Behavior issues will be addressed in the Arbitration case, which looks like it will be accepted. - Che Nuevara 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have always agreed that the links needed to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason not to include Rosencomet in those discussions. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Ekajati - Che Nuevara 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the "burden of proof lies with inclusion not exclusion". This is not a reiteration of policy in my mind. If it is, perhaps you can point us to exactly where that is stated. Rather to cite Jimmy Wales, wikipedia is to be the "Sum total of all knowledge" on the internet. This mediation has failed. Hopefully the arbitration will succeed. Wjhonson 19:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Gladly. - Che Nuevara 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
And the link is about the ability to verify the added material. This mediation has never been about verification. It's been about COI, Undue Weight, Notability, etc. So verification is not relevant to those issue or this mediation. Wjhonson 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

In some cases there are clear policies or guidelines that determine what is, or is not, appropriate content for Wikipedia. In other cases, the policies and guidelines may leave a great deal of discretion to editors. In such cases, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia needs to be stressed. The WP:Consensus gruideline reads in part:

"Insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors, has been adjudged a violation of consensus due to its putting undue weight on a topic."

It is beyond dispute that there exists "opposition by many other editors" to the inclusion of many of the starwood-related links and mentions. While it is entirely appropriate for the pro-starwood editors to argue their cases on talk pages, it is my opinion that it is disruptive for the pro-starwood editors to make edits which increase the presence of starwood on Wikipedia against the strong opposition that has expressed itself. I encourage other editors to state their agreement or disagreement with this position. --BostonMA talk 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Agree with position on consensus summarized by BostonMA. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Comment: please see my comments on consensus above. - Che Nuevara 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I believe that the regular editors of the article in question should discuss this on a case-by-case basis on the talk page of the article concerned. I do not believe it is possible to decide once-for-all. The reason I believe this is because there may be rival pagan factions contributing to a Wikipedia-wide edit war. I do not believe that we should set a precedent which allows stalking based on group rivalries. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I don't consider the information to be insignificant, and several others have agreed with me, nor have I heard anything that supports the idea that it is so. In the absence of any guideline to judge what is a significant fact and what isn't, I have to agree with Che's prior statement that the judgement must be case-by-case. I have offered a few possible factors that have not been commented on so far. I still maintain that 1. the event is notable, and mention in at least SOME cases must be, 2. a citation of the program of the event is a valid way to support the simple fact that it is true (though I'm satisfied not to include external links unless people think they are NECESSARY), 3. the lists of featured speakers and entertainers, especially those notable enough to have their own articles (which are NOT "lists of everyone who has appeared there by any means) are appropriate on the event pages. What is left is the question of when it is "significant enough" to be mentioned on the subject's page. I think that among the factors that, on a case-by-case basis, should support that it is are the notability of the event itself in the communities the subject is best known for (for instance, Pagan/spiritual/magical authors & lecturers), multiple appearances (what number?), and references to other places of the subject's participation (such as the Starwood workshop pictures on Cyro Baptista's website [11], the Stephen Gaskin interview in "Paradigm Shift" [12], and the Terence McKenna interview in Charles Hayes book "Tripping" [13]).
As to consensus, I think that a small group of very energetic individuals including a major sockpuppeteer who helped cause the problem in the first place, and two people who seem to be engaged in their own questionable activities (see: Talk:Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism#Request_for_comments) have helped muddy the issue of whether there is a consensus or not, while two editors involved in the issue have been pressured out of Wiki entirely, and one is on vacation.
I think the attempts to pre-empt this mediation with calls for arbitration and Rfcs while it is still under way should cease, and SOMEONE who seeks a constructive path here should help me choose which links to delete to satisfy those with an honest desire to include those that merit inclusion and exclude those that don't, rather than create an open season for the kind of wholesale deletion that I fear some whould like to see (in spite of frequent statements by most of those involved that some of them are appropriate). I would have a hard time engaging in debates on every single one, and I hope a better method can be agreed on. Rosencomet 03:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Rosencomet, the RfCs, ArbCom case, and the case at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism are all separate issues from this one, which is solely about linking. The ad hominem argument that Pigman and Kathryn are "engaged in their own questionable behavior" does not actually weigh on the merits of this particular instance. If you disagree with the specifics of what I said above, please say so, but this straw argument does not address the actual points I put forward.
There is no such distinction as "local" or "regular editors", Ekajati. Wiki-process trumps ace every time. Wiki-process means community consensus, not segregated consensus. That is simply the way Wikipedia works.
To answer Rosencomet's last point: It seems to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that the majority of editors agree that, in order for a performer to be included in the Starwood article, that performer's appearance has to be significant to Starwood or exceptional in some particular way. Yes, this is subjective, but it is a starting point. - Che Nuevara 04:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose — the constant desire by the contra-editors to summarize the view in their own terms, does not work. This is not consensus, far from it. It appears rather to be an attempt to sweep any opposition under the rug. Again mediation is not a place where you impose your views to crush all opposition. The contra-editors have made no effort whatsoever to understand or come to a "middle ground" in my view. This is not mediation. Mediation is where you find a middle ground. Not where you constantly state your opposition over and over and over and over ad nauseum. This has been a complete waste of my time. Wjhonson 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I love how 80% of this activity is hidden, so people have to search talk pages to find comments like this one which shows that at least one of the contributors here is taking actions, which one might *generously* call "questionable". Wjhonson 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You've made your opinion abundantly clear, Wjhonson. If, as you say, this has been a failure, and it is a waste of your time, then why are you continuing to post here? If you are utterly convinced that there is no reason for you to extend good faith to the other editors involved here, then why do you even care what they say? And do you not find it just a little bit ironic that you start a post about how mediation is "not where you constantly state your opposition" with the bolded word "Oppose"? If you don't want to take part in this discussion, then don't do it. But if you're going to take part, you must do so reasonably and civilly. - Che Nuevara 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, CheNuevara

I'd like to publicly thank CheNuevara. You've done a remarkably good job with the mediation given difficult circumstances. Your summation is fair and takes into consideration the input from both sides of the issue. Not quite Solomonic but close to it. I deeply appreciate the time and effort you've put in on this. Thanks. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Che! Best wishes for the exams and holiday season! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You folks are too kind. Best holiday wishes to you (all) as well, whatever holidays you may be celebrating. - Che Nuevara 04:24, 19 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. Rosencomet 03:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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] Some action taken

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while. Rosencomet 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)