Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop

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


 * To make this discussion more concise, I wish to use a shorthand term. In the articles related to this Arbitration were assertions regarding the appearance of one or another person or group at the Starwood Festival or related event.  I would like to call these "appearance assertions".

I wish to strengthen my objection. Originally I stated that
 * You added a great many "appearance assertions" to various articles.
 * No references were initially provided to support those "appearance assertions".
 * Various accounts, whether sockpuppets of Mattisse or otherwise, added tags to these appearance assertions.
 * The person or persons adding the tags quite likely did not know whether non-rosencomet sources were available to support the appearance assertions.
 * If there had been non-rosencomet sources to support each of of the to the appearance assertions, then questions regarding the notablity, significance or encyclopdicity of the appearance assertions would likely not have become a concern, or would have been less of a concern.
 * At the stage where no references at all had been provided, tags were appropriate.
 * After the tags had been added, Rosencomet, aided by Hanuman Das, Ekajati and 999 added numerous links to the rosencomet website as references to the appearance assertions.
 * Rosencomet was requested to read the spam guideline and the conflict of interest guideline and was requested to stop adding links to the rosencomet site.
 * A shift in opinion occurs which is marked by User:Samir comment that if the appearance assertions belong in the encyclopedia, then links to the rosencomet site are valid sources for those appearance assertions. Whether or not the links are spam is seen to hinge on the notability, significance and encyclopedicity of the appearance assertions themselves, rather than on the links.
 * Requests were made to Rosencomet for third party sources. Although rosencomet later provides third party sources for some appearance assertions, at this point, all such requests are rebuffed.
 * At this point, adding tags would have been inappropriate, because what was at issue was not the factuality of the appearance assertions, but their notability, significance and encyclopedicity.
 * An editor who adds a tag to an assertion is not thereby precluded from subsequently objecting to an inappropriate link added as a reference to that assertion.

I now wish to add to this that:
 * An editor who adds a tag to an assertion is not thereby precluded from subsequently supporting the deletion of that assertion, even if a reference has been subsequently provided.

--BostonMA talk 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I consider the above description to be misleading and inaccurate. First of all, the tags were placed, for the most part, on the Starwood Festival article (which this arbitration is about). The ACE website was referenced from the beginning, and all the appearances are to be found there. This did not satisfy Mattisse and her socks, who under various names placed tags on individuals, and even sowed doubt as to whether some of the people existed at all. Mattisse should not have needed to be TOLD by Samir that the program for an event is a valid citation for that person's appearance at that event; other editors said it repeatedly. These tags had nothing to do with notability, an issue that was brought up later.


 * Several editors said that there was no reason to keep adding tags next to each name in the lists, and that to do so bordered on vandalism. These pleas were ignored; in fact Mattisse subsequently called the presence of these very citations, and the NUMBER of them, to be linkspam, and accused those who placed them there of doing so in order to promote the event, and RALLIED others to fight them ON THAT BASIS. This was not a case of someone honestly doubting the facts in an article and seeking verification. It was a case of causing trouble and work unnecessarily, and in some cases using fake names to accuse another editor of actions the perpetrator did rather than the accused. Not a moment was spent by Matisse in an attempt to be helpful in citing or verifying anything; it was all about challenging the facts and muddying the waters.


 * Furthermore, Samir never used a phrase anything LIKE "Whether or not the links are spam". He said that the issue of whether a mention of an appearance was appropriate to include should be discussed on a case-by-case basis according to such factors as its notability in the life/carreer of the subject, etc. He never said that if the concensus was that a particular mention is inappropriate, then the poster was spamming. That violates AGF and assumes that the intent of the poster was improper rather than simply not in accordance with the majority of those who enter into the discussion.


 * Had Mattisse simply accepted that the presence of the ACE website in the reference section of the article was sufficient as a citation to the fact of ALL the appearances, since they are all documented therein, all the creation and deletion of the external links and the accusations of "google-bombing" would not have taken place. Rosencomet 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet's Recent Edits as of 10 Feb 2007
I didn't really think there was a good place to put this comment so it's here.

Lest I be thought just a naysayer where Rosencomet is concerned, I'd like to say his recent edits over the last few weeks have shown that he does have interests in Wikipedia articles outside of the Starwood/ACE/presenters/performers matrix. This is very encouraging since I had seen no sign previously that this was the case in his Wikipedia edit history.

I'm not suggesting any change in this arbitration or proposals based on this information but I want to recognize that he appears to be making an effort to diversify and contribute constructively to the project outside of his WP:COI sphere. --Pigmantalk 19:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he may have expanded his interests to a few articles that aren't connected to his promotion of ACE/Starwood/Winterstar, but he's still inserting Starwood links and mentions in other articles, as well as trying to get others to insert mentions for him. It's kind and fair-minded of you to note this, but I don't think this expansion necessarily ameliorates the ongoing problem. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's typical that although Pigman can't admit that I have improved my work on the "Starwood-related" articles in any way, reduced links, alleviated complaints, contributed non-ACE related good data, or done anything positive, but when he finally at least says he has seen me edit something not ACE/Starwood/WinterStar related, his tag-team partner and fellow Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism "founder" has to immediately counter any possibility of anything positive being implied by his statement. For the record, although I've mostly created and/or edited the articles of people I know of through my work with ACE, the edits often have nothing to do with ACE or the events, like discographies, bibliographies, and the addition of ISBN numbers and other data to existing ones. Also, I have created and/or edited articles on those who have not appeared at these events, like Rev. Paul Beyerl and Annie Sprinkle. (Also New Orleans Voodoo Temple, Chick Publications, Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, and Dave Sheridan.) But I began with that which I knew, seeking to make a contribution with the data I had access to that many others do not, just as Pigman and Kathryn have been doing on the articles they so jealously pad and protect. I'd have edited more broadly had my work not been assaulted first by Mattisse, then by this cadre that continues to watch my every move and (IMO) harshly misjudge me.


 * And, no, Kathryn, I am NOT "still inserting Starwood links and mentions in other articles, as well as trying to get others to insert mentions for him". I have not increased the number of links, just prevented a couple from being deleted and moved them to a list where their inclusion was more appropriate, and I discussed rewording a mention someone ELSE who I don't at ALL know had made; I did NOT "get him to insert" ANYTHING. Stop misrepresenting what I do; it's IMO just another way of lying about me. Rosencomet 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)