Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation

message: To address a few questions that were brought up on my talk page:
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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)

message: ;Questions to be answered clearly before proceeding
# 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.)
##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.
#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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Ekajati]]

message: * 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Rosencomet]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]]

message: *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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Paul_Pigman|'''Pigman''']] 

message: *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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:AdelaMae]]

message: It seems to me that there are two separate content issues here:
#Is the event roster of a venue sufficient evidence to verify that a particular performer appeared there?
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I included point 1 as per Rosencomet's comments above. - Che Nuevara 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *Agree with WeniWidiWiki. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree with WeniWidiWiki. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree with WeniWidiWiki. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  summation of issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: summation of a number of the comments in RfC and prior attempt at mediation

message: 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)
replies: text: #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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  are continuing the harassment with personal attacks  and racism  as well as targeting articles I've worked on.  Not that I'm surprised. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with you, Ekajati - Che Nuevara 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Gladly. - Che Nuevara 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thank you, CheNuevara 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some action taken