Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Viewpoint

I'm an outsider to this dispute, presenting some things I've found from observing and investigating a little. I've never to my knowledge edited any of the articles related to it. I've never to my knowledge had prior communication with or otherwise heard of any of the disputants until seeing the request for arbitration, which caught my attention because of my ongoing activity in spam and COI cleanup.

A lot of the mediation case and RFAR statements concentrated on the appropriateness of the external links to rosencomet.com, and that's what attracted my notice as well, but I now see the narrow issue of the extlinks as minor to this case. The COI issues are of wider scope than just the extlinks and they are my main area of concern. I'll leave the various other user conduct issues (stalking, sockpuppets, etc.) to the affected parties.

Some other on-wiki discussion

There was some old discussion about this issue on the Wikiproject Wikispam discussion page [2]. It includes some ANI discussion links that are now broken because of ANI archiving. There were two later updates [3] [4], the second of which has extensive direct links to the ANI archives. I didn't find these until after I first commented on the RFAR.

The below is about all I can do tonight--I may add some more later.

Rosencomet created at least 20 spammish articles in his first few days of editing

Rosencomet enrolled his username on 2006-08-13 [5]. He then created the following 20 articles (and maybe others) between 2006-08-14 and 2006-08-17 (links are to initial revisions):

Amampondo Anodea Judith Harvey Wasserman Jay Stevens Jeff Rosenbaum Jesse Wolf Hardin Laurence Galian Louis Martinie' Matthew Abelson Michael T. Gilbert Miriam Chamani Nicki Scully Patricia Monaghan Patricia Telesco Philip H. Farber Sally Eaton Steve Blamires Trance Mission Victoria Ganger WinterStar Symposium.

All of the above 20 articles except one included links to

Some of Rosencomet's article subjects appeared at ACE events quite a long time ago. For example, the initial revision of Michael T. Gilbert mentions Michael T. Gilbert as having spoken at the Starwood festival in the mid-1980's but not more recently than that. Rosencomet's drawing attention to such a remote connection between an article subject and Starwood points to an apparent desire on his part to associate his projects with the article subjects' notability (such as it is). That makes all of these COI edits no matter how distant in the past the subject's involvement with Starwood/ACE was.

Further COI is revealed where Victoria Ganger is described as an ACE organizer and as playing with Jeff Rosenbaum (i.e. Rosencomet) and another performer in their house band Chamelion (later spelled Chameleon). The initial revision of that article [8] describes Chamelion as ACE's board of directors but that description got lost somewhere in the later revisions.

Many or most of these articles are promotional in tone, e.g. "Victoria Ganger is an amazing singer, guitarist and songwriter" [9], Miriam Chamani performs work "touching the souls of all peoples regardless of race or belief" [10], etc. Although some of the articles (especially in later revisions) document enough notability to meet

The above edits all took place during Rosencomet's first few days of Wikipedia participation. Because this particular selection is limited to Rosencomet's earliest edits, they of course don't by themselves indicate ongoing inappropriate editing past that period. But they do show that Rosencomet's initial activity here was to spam the wiki, and that User:WeniWidiWiki's description [11] statement (disputed by Rosencomet in paragraph 2 of Rosencomet's RFAR statement [12] that Rosencomet has created dozens of articles to promote his organization appears to be true. The 20 shown here is slightly less than "dozens", but there are apparently another 20 or so that I haven't yet seen, at least some of which are likely to be similar.

Rosencomet's continuing insensitivity to Wikipedian values

Rosencomet voted "keep" in a currently-active AfD about his autobiographical article, without disclosing his relationship to the article as either subject or author [13]. He describes it as "well researched, well referenced, and goes far beyond any bio existing elsewhere".

Rosencomet in the above diff says "If someone else had written it, these calls for deletion would not have been made." That might be true, but if someone else had written it, it wouldn't be autobiographical and therefore would be far less objectionable.

My issue here isn't the possible attempt at deception in the AfD (I don't really see it as a serious one and in any case it got noticed right away). Rather, it's that Rosencomet's edit above was made on 2006-12-19, far into this long-running, multi-RFC, mediated dispute, for which the current arbitration had already been requested. The initial spamming could be forgiven as a newbie error. But even at this late date, despite his 800+ wiki edits and extensive DR participation, Rosencomet still defends these edits, still seems to have not grasped the concept that it's precisely the WP:VANITY and COI nature of that article (and related ones) that has drawn people's ire. This shows either remarkable tone-deafness or flat-out unconcern on Rosencomet's part to Wikipedian values. The old saying that "it's impossible to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it" may explain what's going on.

There are more examples of this TBD. To be fair, there are also some signs of recent mitigation in other places, that I also haven't yet researched.

"Non-commercial" and "non-profit" are frequently heard, invalid excuses for spamming

TBD.

Violations of

WP:SPAM

In many performers/presenters' articles, he inserted references to his events that seemed solely designed to increase his group/events' visibility. Often these insertions had little relationship to their appropriateness or significance to the subject articles. A representative but by no means exhaustive selection of specific examples are here, here, and here.

The results of the mediation, as articulated on 19 Dec 2006 by mediator CheNeuvara, clearly stated that the group consensus is that Rosencomet should cease working on this group of articles. It is now six days later and Rosencomet is still working on the articles, as well as volubly and confrontationally participating in the AfD for his autobiographical "Jeff Rosenbaum" article. An RfC was initiated on the talk page of the Starwood Festival article which also clearly asked "Can we please declare a moratorium on messing with the links in question until some consensus is reached?" (emphasis in original source). Please note that this was not focused on external links; several editors in this RfC agreed that the proliferating internal links were central to the issue.

Ironically, BostonMA has said "User:Rosencomet has ceased making contentious edits" which I believe is possible because other editors are taking a hands-off approach to these articles until some decision is reached in the arbitration. As for contentiousness, please view this RFAR's talk page.

Harassment of Editors

Perhaps the most disturbing events around these articles is harassment. Editors who have attempted to change these links or argued for their removal have been subject to harassing and disruptive actions against them. I did not personally observe Rosencomet being involved in these tactics but several other editors were. Recent examples here and here. Over time, Hanuman Das was probably the most persistent of those engaging in this harassment. Please see his block log for his history of violations. A charming incident occurs when Hanuman Das insists personal website citations are required for the subject of an article and then makes an incredibly abusive and obscene remark. Hanuman Das has since "retired" his account but Ekajati and 999 have also engaged in similar activities.

For instance,

It is illuminating to compare a diff used by 999 as proof of "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" in the RfC/Mattisse case because it contains personal insults and a distinct lack of evidence of attempting to resolve the dispute. Since 999 regularly deletes other editor's comments from his talk page, I had to dig to get the other side of the conversation from Mattisse. I found a few other instances in this particular series of cites of "evidence" to be very disputable. This one on the Patricia Telesco article talk page shows 999 labeling a content dispute as vandalism. And this diff from the Diana L. Paxon talk page shows 999's hostility and belligerence toward suggestions to improve the citations.

Systematic harassment and attempts to intimidate anyone who removed or even questioned the links has been so severe as to drive one user (Timmy12) off Wikipedia completely. In an attempt to circumvent the harassment, Mattisse turned to the misguided (in my opinion) tactic of using sockpuppets. Since 999 and Hanuman Das have disappeared, the pattern of harassment and intimidation appears to be continuing via Frater Xyzzy[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] and new user Jefferson Anderson[24] [25] [26] [27].

Some recent items also indicate violations of

Continuing Harassment by Jefferson Anderson

• Michael Kraig diff
• Phyllis Curott diff

Note user also reverted request for citations on same article, removing request for cites so the article was unsourced except for, yup, links to the Starwood website.

• Sally Eaton diff
• Ellen Evert Hopman diff
• The
  WP:3RR, another [36], and another [37]. Again an editor removes the Starwood reference and now Rosencomet continues the reverts here [38], and here [39]
  .

I have officially reached the point of being unable to decide where to add additional information and diffs. Proposed Findings of Fact? Proposed Principles? Add to an existing listing or create a new, sort-of-duplicate section? The \Workshop page has become a maze beyond my meager ability to navigate. Thus, although I believe I've already reached beyond the recommended limit of 1000 words, I am adding this section to my evidence; no other option seems appropriate.

Compared to the behaviour of the tangled sockpuppet hydra of Ekajati et al (see

While I know my recommendation that Rosencomet be banned from the talk pages of these articles is considered extreme and overly restrictive, I still consider some form of limitation necessary because he is a combative and prolific poster. He dominates the conversation, not through constructive and productive dialogue but through burying people in words and wearing out dissenting views. Eventually, people just leave the conversation. [40] He often copies and pastes long posts to multiple places. [41] [42] [43] [44] This becomes a kind of aversion therapy for participants, leading people to just disengage rather than work through these repetitive posts.

The entire RfC discussion on merging the articles is worth reading, particularly for the tone of the back and forth exchanges. Here are specific examples of his attitude and combative approach: [45] [46] [47] [48]

He has also been re-adding/expanding links to them in other articles. [49] [50] [51] He has, of course, also continued to work directly and substantially on the ACE/Starwood/WinterStar articles themselves. [52] [53] [54]

As far as I can tell, ACE is not officially a tax-exempt or 501(c) organization. My rough calculations estimate that Starwood and WinterStar generate a minimum cash flow of approx. $250,000 to $300,000 per annum for ACE. In my opinion, this provides part of the motivation for Rosencomet's persistence in editing and WP:OWNing these articles in the face of community disapproval. --

Starwood makes enough money to keep ACE going until sometime the next year, but ACE often has to rely on loans to finance the next Starwood. About one third of the attendance at Starwood pays nothing to be there: they are Starwood staff, Brushwood (the campground) staff, speakers, entertainers, medical personnel, security personnel, "wood-busters" (who build the bonfire and supply & maintain the many fires), and all sorts of others. ACE pays a site fee to Brushwood of $45 per person, including many of the folks that don't pay to be there, and over $15,000 worth of other payments to Brushwood: porta-sans, dumpsters, security, first aid supplies, and many more items. On top of that, there's the sound & video system and crew for five days, truck & trailer rentals, over a thousand dollars worth of wood & the lumber company's crane services, fireworks for the bonfire and the multi-media show (and other materials), Kids' Village materials & personnel, and many other expenses. ACE puts out a 20,000 piece first-class (pre-sort) full-color Starwood mailing, and advertises in other ways as well. And Starwood books nationally and internationally known speakers and entertainment and pays them, plus lodging for many (often at local motels) and thousands of dollars worth of air fare and other travel expenses (and lots of stuff not coming to my mind this moment). You don't get acts like Baka Beyond, Airto Moreira, Brian Auger or Babatunde Olatunji cheap! (And WinterStar rarely even breaks even; ACE holds it to provide a winter break and maintain community continuity from summer to summer.)

I have said several times that neither I nor any other ACE member is paid for their work, but Pigman has violated Assumption of Good Faith here [55] and elsewhere. He and his partners have repeatedly tried to convince people to turn on me based on the issues of vested interest and personal benefit. He ignores the fact that plenty of Wikipedia articles are about obviously commercial enterprises (e.g. IBM, Xerox, Starbucks, Microsoft, etc etc) and keeps trying to slur me with talk of profit motive. On the other hand, he creates new policies out of thin air, implying I should not be allowed to edit something from which I derive a "social benefit" either[56], whatever that means. On this issue, Thatcher said "But, by itself, editing articles you have an interest in is not prohibited. It depends on one's behavior.", and on the accusation that I "violated community guidelines by adding content promoting a commercial enterprise in which he has a vested interest", he said "By itself, this is not actionable." This, Pigman has ignored.

Pigman follows all my edits, constantly checking up on me, and collecting this "ammo" to present out of context. He acts like a parole officer, as if reminding me that he's watching my every move, so I better keep my nose clean. It is a very hostile and oppressive environment. He, Kathryn and WeniWediWiki act as one creating false "consensus", then when I respond however I can to this treatment, he calls it an endurance test and posts comments saying that I should respond with fewer words and less frequently. It's clear that he thinks I have no right to dare argue my point just as vigorously as he does, and he'd like the arbitrators to step in and prevent me from resisting his will - even when it's in a discussion on a talk page!

As to the tremendous amount of diffs with which HE seeks to "dominate the conversation" and "bury people in words and wear out dissenting views", if you actually take them in context, you'll see I have once again responded to the requests he himself (and his partners) and other editors have made to see the three articles expanded in such a way as to further disassociate them and show why they should not be merged. (Pigman has edited Pagan Spirit Gathering, a smaller event, and Kathryn has edited Circle Sanctuary, but somehow they have never proposed merging them. I guess her arguement here [57] only applies to Starwood.)

And I have not added links that were not there when this arbitration began, though I have reverted a couple that were deleted by these three during it, which in my opinion was a slap in the face of this arbitration. I also tried to substitute "Lists of public appearances" with many examples to satisfy the issue of "undue weight" (which was often stated as the reason this trio deleted the link), but somehow Kathryn has decided that User:Thatcher has declared that ANY list of public appearances in an article about someone who is a professional public speaker, no matter what length or how focussed, is "listcruft" and should be removed. I can't find that decision, only the offhand statement that "It is simply not encyclopedic to list every single event an artist has ever participate", which of course I have never done. He also expressed doubt that I was objective enough to decide when a Starwood appearance was notable; however they have removed any such lists even when placed or replaced by another editor, but only on articles I have edited, whether of as many as 14 appearances or as little as five. The issue critical to them is not "listcruft", but whether Starwood is on the list. (I also notice that what I believe to be a new sockpuppet of Mattisse, User:BackMaun, is once again part of this clique, and editing & commenting on articles I edit, and those of User:Jefferson Anderson and User:Frater Xyzzy, hand in hand with Kathryn. For examples, see Anodea Judith and Allen H. Greenfield) Rosencomet 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for CheckUser

Request checkuser for the following accounts:

• Hanuman Das (talk · contribs)
• Ekajati (talk · contribs)
• 999 (talk · contribs)
• Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs)
• Jefferson Anderson (talk · contribs)
• RasputinJSvengali (talk · contribs)
• Moscatanix (talk · contribs)
• Nphase (talk · contribs)
• 71.219.141.151 (talk · contribs)
• Nialofbork (talk · contribs)

User:Mattisse has made significant positive contributions to Wikipedia

Mattisse has made over 12,000 main space edits [58], ranking 600 in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits.

User:Rosencomet has ceased making contentious edits

User:Rosencomet has expressed a willingness to avoid make contentious edits to Starwood/A.C.E. related articles, to assist in providing third party sources, and to improve the articles in conformity with Wikipedia standards [59] . Rosencomet's edits to Starwood/A.C.E. related articles have conformed with the above since Dec 14, 2006 [60]

User:Mattisse has disengaged from edit conflicts with User:Hanuman Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and User:Rosencomet since 29 November 2006

• The Mattisse account has not editted a Starwood related article since 19:00, 29 November 2006 (as far as I am able to tell -- willing to be corrected). (struck because Andrew Cohen was not a starwood related article.)
• The most recent edit conflict involving User:Mattisse on the one hand, and User:Hanuman Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 or User:Rosencomet on the other, was on 29 November 2006. Since that time, Mattisse has made several thousand main space edits unrelated to Starwood.

• The Timmy12 account has not editted a Starwood related article since 01:31, 18 November 2006, on which day he made a single edit to a Starwood related article. Prior to that time, Timmy12 correctly removed a link to Amazon dot com on 14:05, 10 November 2006. The next previous edit of a Starwood related article was 01:33, 5 November 2006.

• None of the accounts listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse has been active since 7 Sept. 2006.

• From the above, it should be established than neither Mattisse, nor Timmy12, nor any of the accounts identified as sockpuppets of Mattisse have been involved in edit conflicts with User:Hanuman Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 or User:Rosencomet after 29 November.

Comment cited by as "Egregious" mistatement appears to be misunderstood by User:999

User:999 in evidence presented below argues that a comment made by Mattisse:

"is particularly egregious, containing several apparently intentional mistruths. In particular, "Since he became the subject of a Checkuser request in an Arbitration case on the same subject as the Mediation, he has not posted under the Jefferson Anderson user name." The request for checkuser was filed by BostonMA on December 23. A look at Jefferson Anderson (talk • contribs) contribs shows that he did not stop editing on that date as accused."

User:999 has apparently interpretted the statement "he has not posted under the Jefferson Anderson user name" to mean that

"Jefferson Andersonson has not posted under the User:Jefferson Anderson account."

I interpret the phrase as meaning that

"Jefferson Anderson did not edit below the name Jefferson Anderson which appears in the mediation request". (Please put accept/decline MedCab/decline Alan.ca under your user name and sign)

That is, Jefferson Anderson did not "accept" the mediation process by editting below his name at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-04 Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism#Acceptance of mediation. My interpretation is supported by the fact that the rest of the comment made by Mattisse contradicts 999's interpretation. Specifically:

"If you look at Jefferson Anderson's contributions, you will see that his last day of posting (January 12) was spent in harassing a person added to the Arbitration until other users stepped in to stop him."

Which would make no sense if Mattisse immediately prior had been stating that Jefferson Anderson had been making no edits with his account. Which clearly shows that Mattisse is aware that Jefferson Anderson had continued to edit under that account. The "misrepresentation" appears to be a misunderstanding on 999's part.

Sockpuppetry by Mattisse

Timmy12 bears all the marks of being a sockpuppet, but whose? He first engaged in stalking 999. He also engaged in harassment of Hanuman Das on H.D.'s talk page. I'm presenting Timmy12's actions in the context of a timeline as I think that will help understand Timmy12.

Background to creation of Timmy12

• Aug 4: Mattisse's first related edit: [61]
• Aug 12: First confirmed sockpuppet GBYork created, [62]
• Aug 20, 11:56: Second confirmed sockpuppet, NLOleson created: [63] (note that this sockpuppet is created in advance of the first tagging spree - the intent to use sockpuppets in the situation dates from before any edit war has started. Also, it could not have been created by "a relative" to whom Mattisse had complained, because the edit war about which she supposedly complained to her relatives had not yet started: the first tagging starts 11 hours later)
• Aug 20, 22:48: Mattisse's first tagging spree starts: [64]
• Aug 21, 21:35: First edit by sock GBYork to a related article: [65]
• Aug 21, 23:49: First edit by sock NLOleson to a related article: [66]
• Aug 22, 01:15: Third confirmed sock, User:ABSmyth, created: [67]
• Aug 22, 22:35: First edit by sock ABSmyth to a related article: [68]
• Aug 25, 17:43: Fourth confirmed sockpuppet,
  Musart
  , which Mattisse will use as another example of "spamming" by the "Starwood people")
• Aug 25, 22:32:
  Magick article a hoax: [70] (this will prove to be related to some early edits by Timmy12
  )
• Aug 26, 09:40: Fifth confirmed sock, Gjeatman created, only used for three edits: contribs; note especially this edit "beginning Robert Shea article for Starwood": [71]
• Aug 27, 00:01: Sixth confirmed sock, AgastNeey created, used only to vote in AfD: contribs
• Aug 27, 17:45: Preexisting sockpuppet, NothingMuch enters the fray, editiing same article created by sockpuppet Gjeatman: [72] (note the addition of a link to Association for Consciousness Exploration, intended to be used as an example of "Starwood spamming")
• Sep 2, 06:59: Sockpuppets are caught and blocked by Rdsmith4: [73]

Interlude - Dattat created for harassment of 999

• Aug 30, 22:55: Seventh confirmed sockpuppet is created, whose first edit is to revert an edit by 999 on the article Dattatreya: [74]
• Agreement with another editor Shravak makes 999 suspect sockpuppetry: [75]
• 999 files a suspected sockpuppet report: [76]
• Dattat harasses 999 on his talk page in response: [77], [78], [79], [80], and, oddly, also Hanuman Das: [81]
• Sep 2, 06:59: As a result of this sockpuppet report, Rdsmith4 discovers that while Dattat is not a sock of Shravak, it is one of several newly discovered sockpuppets of Mattisse: [82]

Enter Timmy12

• Sep 8, 14:29: Timmy12's first edit shows knowledge of Wikipedia policy, calling an article "original research" using the abbreviation "OR": [83]
• Before engaging in edit warring over Starwood, Timmy12 stalks 999:
  • Sep 11, 21:08: Stalking 999: [84]
  • Sep 13, 00:58: Another disruptive edit following 999: [85]
  • Sep 14, 23:59: Another disruptive edit following 999: [86]
  • Sep 15, 00:06: Makes a similar disruptive edit to a template last edited by 999: [87]
• Sep 16, 13:10: First edit to a "Starwood" article, comes after stalking of 999 in retaliation for reporting Dattat leading to discovery of Mattisse's sockpuppetry: [88]
• Sep 22, 22:20: Timmy12 harasses Hanuman Das on the latter's talk page: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]
• Sep 24, 02:38: Timmy12 then stalks Hanuman Das to Michael Roach, an article never before edited by Timmy: [97]
• Oct 25, 13:37: further harassment of Hanuman Das: [98]

"Personal" files

Both Mattisse and Timmy12 have created a great number of User space subpages, "documenting" their "harassment":

• Oct 19, 17:15: First documentary "personal file" created by Timmy12: [99]
• Oct 23, 21:13: First documentary "personal file" created by Mattisse: [100]

Statement Regarding Hanuman Das/Ekajati Sockpuppet Allegations

(the following was posted on Ekajati's talk page with a request that I add this to the Arbitration case. --BostonMA ^talk 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, what a kick in the ass,

I couldn't possibly be A Ramachandran, because I couldn't possibly have created the following article in his "top ten" list: List of vacuum tubes. I haven't got a technical bone in my body. Check my edit history, I've never touched a technical article.

As for Tunnels of Set, he's pretty far from my interests. I start from Vajrayana which takes me as far as Tantra, from there to Sex magic (and making sure the two are not used interchangably). That necessarily involves me somewhat peripherally with Thelema and Aleister Crowley, but it doesn't take me all the way to the devil!

Anyway, I've looked through the first page of their contributions, and these look like exemplary editors. I see no edit warring, no personal attacks, in fact, I see them both attempting to mediate in other user's disputes. Take a look through them yourselves, I don't have time this AM to post diffs.

Also, I find it quite unlikely that this user is Hanuman Das. It appears that he is actually working with Hamsacharya dan on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. Read User talk:Hamsacharya dan#AfD and sources and on down. Hanuman Das and Hamsacharya dan were bitterly opposed on that article and were edit warring, leading to both being blocked for 3RR on several occasions, IIRC. Check their block logs and the article history. And check out his edits in the Wikipedia namespace: [101], he actually posts several times on behalf of Hamsacharya dan, about impersonation and the use of his legal name. If that's Hanuman Das, he's certainly changed his stripes. I thought a user had to actually violate policy with a sockpuppet in order to be blocked.

So, I have a formal request. I know you won't believe me saying that some other user is not my sockpuppet, so let's assume that they are. I have no intention of editing myself any more, this is my last edit. I will not continue to contribute to a site that let's Mattisse off with only a few hours of blocking after using 18 sockpuppets, and using them abusively, and then blocks me for two months, for allegedly using sockpuppets which are not abusive at all and which in particular appear to have stayed away from Starwood and all the parties involved in it. So please exchange my block with A Ramachandran's. That is, block me indefinitely and give A. Ramachandran my two month block. And please consider reducing or eliminating that block. If he were my sockpuppet, I would be proud of the way he has behaved on Wikipedia. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence page guidelines recommend that evidence presentation be kept to 1000 words and 100 diffs. This evidence section is over 4000 words long. Please consider how you can trim or condense it to focus on the most important issues. Thatcher131 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

On the Matisse sockpuppetry issue

I apologize if some of this information is already presented in the above statement by Ekajati. This is just to show that while Matisse was wildly tagging articles linked to Starwood Festival with "citation needed" tags, later to call on many editors to help in a campaign to delete them, then have them taken down as linkspam and google-bombing, she was ALSO CREATING articles with links to Starwood Festival herself, then calling them to the attention of other editors as examples of how there were too many articles linked to it and that I was "out of control". I believe that most of the objections by editors other than Matisse and socks of Matisse (who have weighed in multiple times in discussions about both the links and the notability of individual articles I've written in order to create the illusion that she had major support in the Wiki community) were swayed, in great part, by this campaign to create a "Major Problem" where one did not exist. Please understand: it is these actions that caused the large number of external links, and the hostile atmosphere around this issue, and that remained when new folks began to weigh in on other issues. Those who had fought Matisse's behavior were extremely (perhaps overly) defensive when others brought their concerns to the article.

1. Matisse began complaining about the article on August 20th, just one week after my first Wikipedia edit. On the 21st, the complaint was "there is no documentation for any of the material in this article - all its link are interal except for company website". Yet later, all external links were criticized. By August 22nd, under the sock-puppet name NLOleson, multiple citation tags appeared along with (ironically) challenges as to the very existence of some of the speakers. Two other socks, ABSmyth and GBYork, appear on the 23rd. Other articles I have written are simultaneously being hit by these and other socks of Matisse.

2. The Musart article (linked to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium) was created August 25th by Flinders, a sock of Matisse. The Answers.com text mentioned below about Musart (point 8) is obviously cribbed from the Wiki article she created, yet she speaks as if she "found" this evidence that this issue is not minor! The next day, Flinders creates unecessary links on many words like "day", "night", "adult", "class", etc.

3. On Aug 30th, another sock appears: Gjeatman, who inserts a speaker that never appeared at Starwood, Anne Hill. It is deleted, but reinserted on Sept 4th by yet another sock, Blackhak. This name is inserted in other articles written by me; in one case, the name Anne Rice is changed to Anne Hill.

4. The "What Witches Do" article was created on September 3rd by LiftWaffen, another Matisse sock. She returned the next day to add a link to Association for Consciousness Exploration.

5. Andrew Cohen, mentioned below by Matisse on Salix Alba's page as a "Starwood Speaker", has never appeared at Starwood nor has his page been linked to the Starwood page.

6. There are links to Musart on the "Chalino Sánchez" and "Lucero" articles that I believe are incorrect, and probably refer to the record company DiscosMusart, which has no Wiki article.

7. Here is what Matisse said to BostonMa about Musart in November:

hopeless mediation

Hi. I wrote a question on the Starwood Mediation page and got an unsatisfactory answer from Rosencomet. Plus I notices another article waiting in the wings: Musart. Do you think we should ask for another mediator? Ours seems to be missing in action. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree. It is hopeless and would be a waste of your time. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

8. This was posted on Salix Alba's talk page the same day:

Hi again! Check out Musart. it is waiting in the wings to have bunches of names added. Mattisse(talk) 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this out [16] from Answers.com If, by chance, you think this is minor. Mattisse(talk) 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And 8 days later:

Maybe you would weigh in on the Andrew Cohen talk page (a Starwood Festival speaker) as there is a discussion on what type of links to include as external links. The particular link in question may not be a good example to defend, but at least it's the start of a general discussion. Mattisse(talk) 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

9. Now this one was on Pigman's talk page on December 7th. I've included Ekajati's comment.

I just ran across this: Musart. The links at the bottom are bad. One goes nowhere. The other pertains if anything to this: Musart Records -- which I wrote (not very well) trying to sort out the problem regarding various (legitimate) artists whose articles list this label -- none of which are in that list on Musart. What to do? Perhaps you know. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, it's the usual Starwood Festival crowd listed. I wonder if this is hopeless. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now this is not funny, Mattisse. That article, as you have to know, was started by Flinders, who was confirmed by CheckUser as one of your sockpuppets. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

10. This non-explanation of the creation of the Musart article was posted on BostonMa's talk page. I've included Hanuman Das' input:

I clicked on the name, Flinders, and it was identified as a sockpuppet of my account. I don't know what else to say. I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done. I am not clear what was going on at that time. At the time I explained my role in the matter. The result is though that I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article. If will explain the situation in any degree of detail you desire. I don't know what level of detail is appropriate here. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation: That I personally did not create the sockpuppets but they were created on my computer, as proved by CheckUser. There was an unusual sitation. Relatives, including my daughter and her children, suddenly were in my house. In the middle of this was when I was doing backlogs in the wikify bin (to get away from real life stress) and AFD'd Philip Farber. This was just after Netsnipe had identified a suite of similar articles and ADFed the whole suite. I asked him what to do but he was busy with his admin election. I used bad judgment and tagged too many articles. 999 attacked me. I became upset, being already upset because of outside events. I talked about it too much to my visitors, none of whom were involved with Wikipedia. I don't know really what happened. Part of what was going on here meant that I was not home always. I do know that I left my granddaughter alone, at that time not realising that Wikipedia was such a dangerous place, so she did somethings on Wikipedia unsupervised. I guess I should look back and see exactly what. Someone emailed me that she put her age on her user page and that I should delete that. I tried but was not allowed. Then an admin believed she was my granddaughter and did delete it or do something with it. To tell you the truth, I don't really want to know what these various accounts did because it starts to give me bad feelings about my family -- whether they were trying to harm me or help me I don't know. And it has affected our relationship since then. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me for butting in here, but this is the same excuse she used for the previous sockpuppet incident (pre-Rosencomet). See Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. I believe that User:Salix alba was involved in that incident. —Hanuman Das 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion and I don't quite get what I did that was so wrong. I asked Paul Pigman a question. At the time I didn't know it was a Flinders article. Flinders did whatever in the past. In any case, I would not have done anything to a Starwood article myself. That is why I asked someone. If I repeat the same story regarding events around that time, what else should I do? It's only because Musart Records came up on my watch list as "unsourced" that I even looked at it. Because I write and edit so many record label articles, I did not get the connection at first. I do not understand this place. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

11. I must say that this is a pretty bizarre situation. Matisse has used sock-puppets for a long time to disrupt the work of a number of editors in various ways, and seems to openly admit it here, and I find that strange enough (since, perhaps because I'm a newcomer, I just don't see what she gets out of this kind of behavior except sowing anger and frustration among hard-working volunteers), but phrases like "I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done." or "I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article" make me wonder how she can EVER be held accountable for what she does. In a different way, I find the attempt to shift the blame to unspecified family members even more disturbing.

Matisse seems to have not only done these things, and not only on the Starwood article but several others, but has drawn well-meaning people into the fray. I don't see how the issue under arbitration can be discussed without at least airing these facts, and allowing those who have been swayed to believe that there is a serious situation that must be nipped in the bud to understand that, at least to some extent, it has not only been exaggerated but increased and manipulated by the very person that brought it to their attention and enlisted their help. Rosencomet 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Rosencomet 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by Rosencomet concerning the links and the list provided

I have provided a revised version of this list, broken into an IMO better set of categories, and including much of the material that Salix Alba, BostonMa, Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki have in the past claimed that would satisfy notability: 3rd-party citations, mentions on the web pages of the subject, and the existence of recordings produced from appearances and made commercially available. I have put a great deal of time and effort into providing this material, mostly in the articles of the subjects rather than the Starwood article, while deleting external links to the ACE website in most cases. I have also added some references here and there, and unlinked some articles entirely. You will find the revised list below the following exchange between me and Salix Alba. Rosencomet 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the above evidence by Rosencomet and Salix Alba

Hmm. What percentage of the places the

Beatles

? Gilli Smyth is also a Neo-Pagan speaker and performance artist, and she both performed and presented workshops twice at Starwood, and was part of the Starwood Jam Band that produced the tape (soon to be a CD) Bonfire Dreams. Starwood was probably her biggest audience for a solo appearance that decade; at least, the agent that was helping book her and other Gong members at that time says so. They were playing coffeehouses like the Gallery Cafe' in Cleveland at that time. (Someone should probably put together a discography for her.)

The difference there is notability, and the volumns of sources. Woodstock is the stuff of rock legands and for some bands it was one of the high spots of their acheivements. I've not problem with a link if starwood truely is the one of their most important performances, although we would need documentry evidence to show this. When performers don't even mention starwood on their websites I find it hard to assert particular importance. As for Gilly Smith, we would need a

relable source to assert that it was here biggest audience. I agree the Gilly Smyth page could do with expansion, I was quite suprised to find there was no page on her a few month back when I created the stub. --Salix alba (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not claim that Starwood is one of her most important performances or biggest audiences IN THE ARTICLE. Had I done so, yes, that claim would have to be supported. All I said is that she had performed and offered workshops there, and there are two examples easily citable from the ACE website on that fact. If anyone wants to add other places where she has done the same, or create a list of events she has offered solo performance & workshops at, I welcome them. But I don't agree that the fact needs to be deleted, or that it shows undue weight, simply because I personally didn't make that greater contribution to the article. I don't mean to trivialize any other appearance she has made, but my time is not unlimited.Rosencomet 17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood is not only a Neo-Pagan event by any means, by the way. Speakers on the counter-culture, entheogenics and the psychedelic experience have been a regular feature there from the beginning, like Timothy Leary*, Terence McKenna*, Robert Anton Wilson*, Robert Shea*, Jonathan Ott, Ralph Metzner, Stanley Krippner, Philip H. Farber, R.U. Sirius, Jay Stevens, Charles Hayes, Martin A. Lee, David Jay Brown, Paul Krassner*, Rev. Ivan Stang* and Stephen Gaskin. Some of them, the ones I've put asterisks by, have produced cassettes or CDs of their talks at Starwood.

Other musical acts besides Babatunde Olatunji that have appeared on albums recorded at Starwood include Halim El-Dabh, Muruga Booker, Stephen Kent, Isaac Bonewits, Sally Eaton, Ian Corrigan, Victoria Ganger, Jeff Rosenbaum, John Bassette, Kiva, Nicky Scully, Airto Moreira, Nada Brahma, Tribe of Spirit, Seeds of Time, and others. Neo-Pagan speakers on lecture cassettes and CDs have included Oberon & Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, Anodea Judith, Donald Michael Kraig, Arlen Riley Wilson, Patricia Monaghan, Isaac Bonewits, Ian Corrigan, Deborah Lipp, Nema, Rev. Paul Beyerl and others. Rosencomet 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a released album recorded at starwood, then that is certainly a notable fact which can be included. --Salix alba (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rosencomet on the list pre-revision

If you eliminate all the talk pages, redirect pages, ambiguity pages, mediation & arbitration and such, and links to

Sherman, New York

(neither of which I created or linked), there are only 80, not 91. Of these:

• One is from the organization (ACE) that created and runs Starwood, and one is from its sister event WinterStar Symposium, which makes sense to have links from.
• One is the X-Day article that says that X-Day is held at the same site as Starwood (which I did not create or link).
• One (Christopher Moore) was taken down by me, but replaced by another editor.
• One is from What Witches Do which was created by user:LiftWaffen (who is on the list of Matisse sockpuppets and flagged as such, and who recreated the Ann Hill article that was linked to the Starwood page falsely, an article originally created by Matisse sockpuppet user:Flinders, also flagged as such, who also created the fake article Musart linked to Starwood), and the whole article is questionable as to notability IMO.

(You can trivialize what Matisse did, but I didn't ask her to do it, nor did I find out about the whole "sockpuppet" thing until quite a bit later from people she had been doing this to before I ever became an editor. She must take some responsibility for this mess, and for what happened to Timmy12, and for many of the accusations to others who were suspected of being one of her MANY socks both flagging articles unnecessarily and CREATING fake ones.)

Most of the rest now have 3rd-party citations, and many of those that don't are speakers for whom IMO the Starwood Festival is an obviously important credit, like Jesse Wolf Hardin and Daniel Harms.

As to external links, there are 32 links outside of the talk pages, etc, however several are to the Association for Consciousness Exploration itself and the Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium articles, and several more are two or more to the same articles for different reasons (some not related to Starwood), and several were not created by me. Not counting ACE and the two events, there are actually 17 articles with links to the ACE website for one reason or another, not 32.

The question of whether the external links are necessary has still not been answered. The issue of whether they are appropriate as citations to verify the truth of the appearance seems to have been asserted as a yes. The question of when they are notable enough has been left to a case-by-case analysis which should take into account 1. whether a 3rd-party source can be supplied, 2. whether the presence of these speakers is notable for the event (which I still propose they are, if they are notable enough to have articles), and 3. whether the appearance is notable enough to be listed in the subjects' bios (based on 3rd-party sources, common sense if they are lecturers at such events since this is the biggest one in the genre, mentions on their own websites, etc). There may be more factors, but these have come up again and again.

But there are a few people, even when they are the ones that said that these are factors that would satisfy them (and a lot of work has gone into trying to do just that), who keep coming back to the unsupported statement that "there are too many", and they must be reduced to a "reasonable level", and that this is a problem, without any Wikipedia guidelines or polices to back this up. No matter what is done, no matter how many other articles have multiple links (even ones THEY reference like

Lalapalooza, with well over 200 links just FROM musical acts and over 300 TO musical acts, listing all acts with or without articles since their founding in 1991, by stage appeared on, and including those acts booked in the year the event was CANCELLED), they just want to get rid of them. Rosencomet 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1. List of festivals in the United States
2. Sherman (town), New York
3. Association for Consciousness Exploration
4. X-Day (Church of the SubGenius)
5. WinterStar Symposium

Counter-culture, Psychedelic/Entheogenic, & Socio-Political figures

1. Robert Anton Wilson - reference to ACE in Guardian Obit of Wilson [102] - released 6 Starwood & WinterStar lectures, 3 panel discussions, 1 dialog with Timothy Leary - appearance citation [103]
2. Paul Krassner - appearance citations [104][105]
3. Terence McKenna - released 3 recordings of Starwood lectures
4. Timothy Leary - released 2 recordings of Starwood lectures, 1 at another ACE event, 1 dialog with Robert Anton Wilson - appearance citation [106]
5. Robert Shea - released 3 lectures & 2 panel discussions at ACE events
6. R. U. Sirius - appearance citations [107][108]
7. Ivan Stang - SubGenius - released at least 6 recordings of Starwood appearances, several panel discussions and WinterStar appearances on tape, CD and DVD - appearance citation [109]
8. Ralph Metzner - appearance citation [110]
9. Stephen Gaskin appearance citations [111]Interview of Stephen Gaskin[112]
10. Ina May Gaskin - appearance citation [113]
11. Stanley Krippner appearance citations [114][115]
12. David Jay Brown appearance citations [116][117]
13. Harvey Wasserman released 1 Starwood lecture - appearance citations [118][119]
14. Jay Stevens - appearance citation [120]
15. Philip H. Farber appearance citation [121]
16. George R. Harker appearance citation [122]

Neopagans, New Agers & Spiritual Speakers

1. Isaac Bonewits released 8 lectures from Starwood, WinterStar & ACE Center, 2 WinterStar panel discussions, appears on 3 compilations, ACE produces 2 music CDs - appearance citations [123][124]
2. Dagmar Braun Celeste - appearance citations [125][126]
3. Silver RavenWolf
4. Raymond Buckland
5. Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart released 2 Starwood lectures with Oberon Zell-Ravenheart
6. Christopher Penczak appearance citation [127]
7. Janet Farrar - appearance citation [128]
8. Diana L. Paxson - appearance citation [129]
9. Nema - appearance citation [130], released recording of WinterStar lecture "Pan-Aeonic Magick"
10. Selena Fox Performs at Starwood on Starwood Memories recording releasd by ACE, 2 WinterStar panel discussions - appearance citation [131]
11. Deborah Lipp released 2 Starwood lectures with Isaac Bonewits - appearance citations [132][133]
12. Gavin Frost appearance citations [134][135]
13. Yvonne Frost appearance citations [136][137]
14. Phyllis Curott appearance citations [138], [139], The Blame Game[140]
15. Donald Michael Kraig released 6 recordings and one panel discussion at Starwood & WinterStar - appearance citations [141][142]
16. Oberon Zell Ravenheart released 4 Starwood lectures appearance citations [143][144]
17. Ian Corrigan released 5 Starwood/WinterStar lectures & one Workshop/Performance, appears on 4 music recordings - appearance citations [145] [146][147]
18. Baba Raul Canizares - appearance citation [148]
19. Miriam Chamani - appearance citation [149]
20. Laurence Galian - appearance citation [150]
21. Patricia Monaghan released 1 lecture (containing both Starwood & WinterStar material), 1 WinterStar panel discussion - appearance citations [151][152]
22. M. Macha Nightmare appearance citations [153][154]
23. Anodea Judith released 2 Starwood lectures, 1 WinterStar panel discussion, 1 meditation CD on ACE/Llewellyn label - appearance citation [155]
24. Jesse Wolf Hardin appearance citations [156][157]
25. Louis Martinie' appearance citation [158]
26. Nicki Scully released 1 Starwood guided meditation recording - appearance citation [159]
27. Daniel Harms - appearance citation [160]
28. Gavin Bone - appearance citation [161]
29. Richard Kaczynski - appearance citation [162]
30. LaSara FireFox appearance citations [163][164][165]

Artists & Musicians

1. Babatunde Olatunji - released album & DVD recorded at starwood, so I guess OK - appearance citation [166]
2. Halley DeVestern - appearance citations [167] [168]
3. Brian Auger - appearance citations [169][170]
4. Perry Robinson - appearance citation [171]
5. Jeff McBride - recording Songs from the Center of the Sacred Circle by ACE, appearance citations [172][173]
6. Halim El-Dabh - released 1 concert CD and DVD, and appeared on the CD and DVD of Babatundi Olatunji's appearance, both at Starwood - appearance citation [http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/fun/devivals/STARWOOD23/Starwood_23_Stang_Report.html
7. Gaelic Storm appearance citations [174][175]
8. Badal Roy - appearance citation [176]
9. Yaya Diallo - appearance citation [177]
10. Merl Saunders appearance citations [178][179]
11. Airto Moreira appears on Stephen Kent Live at Starwood CD & DVD - appearance citation [180]
12. Muruga Booker - appearance citation [181]
13. Cyro Baptista appearance citation [182]
14. Stephen Kent (musician) released CD and DVD of Starwood performance - appearance citations [183][184]
15. Sikiru Adepoju - appearance citation [185]
16. Victoria Ganger released 3 musical recordings, appears on 3 more, 1 chant workshop all at ACE events - appearance citation [186]
17. Matthew Abelson - appearance citation [187]
18. Trance Mission appearance citation http://www.stephenkent.net/skEvents.html
19. Gilli Smyth appears on Bonfire Dreams: Starwood Jam Sessions
20. Jim Donovan (musician) - appearance citation [188]
21. Chas Smith several Starwood appearances on Church of the SubGenius CDs & DVDs - appearance citations [189][190]
22. Owain Phyfe - appearance citation [191]
23. John Bassette appears on Starwood Memories performing at Starwood

• Re: List Revision I've dropped a few no longer linked articles and a re-direct page (ACE), added mention of recordings as per Salix Alba's comment below, re-grouped, added some of the citations. Several of the people above belong in more than one category; for instance, Robert Anton Wilson and Philip H. Farber are both counter-culture, psychology, and Neo-Pagan speakers. Several of the Musicians are also Spiritual speakers, like Gilli Smyth, Muruga Booker, Halim El-Dabh and Victoria Ganger. More of this will be done soon. The total is under 80. Rosencomet 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citations added here include only 3rd-party citations. They do not include the mention on the ACE website of each and every person and act in these lists in the Starwood Speakers' Roster and/or the program for the event from that particular year. EVERY speaker, artist and entertainer in these lists can be found there, and many more besides. It is also worth noting that in some cases the only reason an article is linked to the Starwood one is that they recorded an album there with a name like "so-and-so Live at Starwood", or were part of a recorded and produced panel discussion described as "recorded live at WinterStar", or something like that. Rosencomet 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking much improved to me, we now have some good justifications to most of the artist listed here. Still some, say Stratospheerius which don't seem to have any special connection to starwood. --Salix alba (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment a great deal! This article, like many (if not all) on Wikipedia, is a work in progress. Starwood is probably one of the biggest audiences Stratospheerius has headlined at, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. Give me some time without having to wage a daily battle about past issues and accusations and all of that, and I hope to demonstrate (with occasional help from others) that all artists & speakers can be cited as to the notability of their inclusion (those that are not self-evident), or some may have to be removed until such time as they can be better supported. But thanks for at least recognized all the work I'm doing to improve things and address issues. Rosencomet 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted more links to and from article. Artists' links to page now under 70. Lists on article down to: 50 speakers, 25 entertainers. (Event has run for 26 years.) Rosencomet 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timmy12

From almost as soon as his arrival in wikipedia Timmy12 (talk · contribs) received a barrage of negative comments: Hanuman Das (accusations of sockpuppetry) [192], [193], Ekajati [194][195] Tvccs (talk · contribs) [196]. 999's vandalism warning (asserting that removing links to starwoord was vandalism) [197], removed by Samir (The Scope) (talk · contribs), restored by Ekajati [198], removed by BostonMA [199].

Whilst Timmy12 was combative these comments seem to fall foul of

Sockpuppet allegations were at

Timmy12 now appears to have left wikipedia his last contribution was on 1st Dec 2006 [202]. --Salix alba (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LiftWaffen

LiftWaffen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked as as mattise sock. However a recient comment by mattise [203] suggests that this users was was not connected. It might be an idea to do a checkuser on all those previously accused of sockpuppetry. Not a big deal but just a bit of house cleaning.

80.90.47.176

32 main-space articles currently link to the starwood website [204]. 91 articles link to Starwood Festival, [205]. There were also many links to freefind.com, which were searches of the starwood sites, these are now removed [206].

I believe the very hostile reactions of some have turned many editors away from trying to reduced the number of links to a reasonable level. We have seen the abuse which results and know that trying to remove any link or will result in a long battle, and most probably a sockpuppet accusation. --Salix alba (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently only 15 main-space articles linked to the Starwood website (although some have more than one link to different places on that website for different reasons). There are only 69 "people articles" internally linked to the Starwood Festival article as of now; there are a few non-people internal links like "Neo-Pagan Festivals" and "Sherman, NY". Rosencomet 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of articles linking to starwood

List now cut as it duplicates rosencommets above.

I'd guess theres more justification for neo-pagan inclusion, than others. For many of these I can find little mention elsewhere, for example for Gilli Smyth, whos a fairly well know 60/70 musician with Gong (band) there a couple of forum posting linking her to starwood but little else, and no mention of starwood on her website. She has toured extensively world wide, I'd guess starwood aperances is less than 1% of the places shes performed. [207] --Salix alba (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically analysing contributions

Some of the evidence presented here is examining the overlap between users contributions, in particular the gaps between sucessive edits. To try to get some meaning to this I've done a bit of analysis of my own contributions.

This might shed some light on what is a continuous edit session. From the table theres a 1 in 4 chance that I will not edit again in the next 30 mins. --Salix alba (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincident editting of H Das, 999, Electra

Bearing in mind the fact that CheckUser says they are all from different IPs I thought I'd see the minimum time elaspe between edits, and how many edits were within 1 min of the other user and how many were within 5 mins.

                       1 min   5 min
Hanuman Das	999	2 	18
Hanuman Das	Ekajati	1	22
999	Ekajati	        2	21

If we are to support the idea that this is a single person editing each account from different IPs they must either be a very quick runner or have a serious rig with three computers at home. --Salix alba (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading the checkusers' comments. By the time anyone checked Ekajati, Hanuman had been gone long enough that his edits were off the system. We know two of Hanuman's previous IPs because he left them lying around, but too much time has passed to see if Ekajati's contribs over April-December were from the same or different IPs than Hanuman. The only meaningful comparison would be recent edits (the last month more or less) of Ekajati and 999.

Thatcher131 16:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this explains a lot. --Salix alba (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another from Fratter Xyyzy

I just saw your post on the Starwood fiasco. You are on the right track. I know (almost) everybody involved in the blocks. Ekajati is the wife of A Ramachandran/Tunnels of Set. She is interested almost exclusively in both Hindu and Buddhist tantra. He is also interested in these but also occult and Golden Dawn. I met him, but not Ekajati, through 999, who is also interested in Golden Dawn. I am am member of Golden Dawn and know 999 because he likes to attend G.D. events, though he has not joined. I met A.R. through 999 at a Golden Dawn conference in Austin, where I lived also until mid-December.

I now live in Seattle. I emailed Blnguyen and told him that and said he was welcome to have someone checkuser it, but he has not responded. This situation is insane. But I am afraid the more people try to explain it, the more people will be dragged into it an blocked.

--Salix alba (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated harassment of Jefferson Anderson

The members of the anti-Starwood party have been harassing non-party Jefferson Anderson by making baseless and incivil accusations against him and relating these accusation to this arbitration, implying the said user is a member of the pro-Starwood faction without reason or evidence.

• WeniWidiWiki: [208], [209]
• Paul Pigman: [210], [211]
• Kathryn NicDhana: [212], [213], [214]
• Mattisse: [215], [216]

The last comment by Mattisse is particularly egregious, containing several apparently intentional mistruths. In particular, "Since he became the subject of a Checkuser request in an Arbitration case on the same subject as the Mediation, he has not posted under the Jefferson Anderson user name." The request for checkuser was filed by BostonMA on December 23. A look at Jefferson Anderson (talk · contribs) contribs shows that he did not stop editing on that date as accused.

999 (Talk) 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Rosencomet 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two Mattisses

I saw something today that made everything fall into place for me. There are two people editing from Mattisse's account. One has a Ph.D., is mild-mannered and civil, and knows how to spell; the other goes around claiming to be a victim, and can't spell. In particular, this individual can't spell "protection". Here is the edit from today: [217] - notice the spellings, "protexting", "protextion". They are actually from an earlier edit, the page creation, but they rang a bell. Here is the other Mattisse, who knows how to spell "protecting" and "protection": [218] 999 (Talk)

Mattisse and Timmy 12: no overlapping edit sessions

Copied from [219] as written by Hanuman Das in November. Per Blnguyen, here, this is pretty much indisputable evidence of sockpuppety when combined with the list of article both edited also provided by Hanuman Das here. There is no doubt in my mind that these are the same user based on these two together:

"I've taken the edit data for the last month for both Timmy12 and Mattisse, labeled, merged, sorted and massaged it. Here are the results: Timmy12 and Mattisse have no overlapping edit sessions. Based on the data, I'd say it takes Mattisse about 10 to 15 minutes to get from one computer to the other. Based on this observation by Ekajati, the second location would appear to be a library with online access to academic journals. "

Mattisse 23:47, 10 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 00:41, 11 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 15:13, 11 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 23:08, 11 October 2006 start
Timmy12 00:18, 12 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 00:32, 12 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 13:54, 12 October 2006 start
Timmy12 16:12, 12 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 18:01, 12 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 18:11, 12 October 2006 start
Timmy12 21:46, 12 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 00:55, 13 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 01:13, 13 October 2006 start
Mattisse 01:24, 13 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 12:24, 13 October 2006 start
Timmy12 13:05, 13 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 13:23, 13 October 2006 start
Mattisse 17:56, 13 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 18:33, 13 October 2006 start
Timmy12 18:56, 13 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 19:31, 13 October 2006 start
Mattisse 02:52, 14 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 03:10, 14 October 2006 start
Timmy12 03:21, 14 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 13:05, 14 October 2006 start
Mattisse 23:54, 14 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 02:13, 15 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 13:33, 15 October 2006 start
Mattisse 22:04, 15 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 00:41, 16 October 2006 start
Mattisse 01:49, 16 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 14:08, 16 October 2006 start 
Mattisse 18:04, 16 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 21:07, 16 October 2006 start
Timmy12 22:01, 16 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 22:36, 16 October 2006 start
Mattisse 03:42, 17 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:25, 17 October 2006 start
Mattisse 03:27, 18 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 10:26, 18 October 2006 start
Mattisse 10:59, 18 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:39, 18 October 2006 start
Mattisse 16:53, 18 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 18:07, 18 October 2006 start
Mattisse 01:46, 19 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 08:52, 19 October 2006 start
Mattisse 09:40, 19 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 14:53, 19 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 15:45, 19 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 16:31, 19 October 2006 start
Timmy12 19:16, 19 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 23:20, 19 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 01:01, 20 October 2006 start
Mattisse 03:09, 20 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:50, 20 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 14:49, 20 October 2006 start
Mattisse 17:59, 20 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 18:38, 20 October 2006 start
Timmy12 19:27, 20 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 19:54, 20 October 2006 start
Mattisse 20:01, 20 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 20:57, 20 October 2006 start
Timmy12 21:34, 20 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 23:21, 20 October 2006 start
Mattisse 03:33, 21 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:12, 21 October 2006 start
Mattisse 02:04, 22 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 13:31, 22 October 2006 start
Mattisse 17:30, 22 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 20:04, 22 October 2006 start
Mattisse 22:09, 22 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 02:11, 23 October 2006 start
Mattisse 02:16, 23 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:15, 23 October 2006 start
Mattisse 05:04, 24 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 05:16, 24 October 2006 start
Timmy12 05:35, 24 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:41, 24 October 2006 start
Mattisse 17:53, 24 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 19:08, 24 October 2006 start
Mattisse 19:35, 24 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 22:53, 24 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 02:56, 25 October 2006 start
Timmy12 03:10, 25 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 12:41, 25 October 2006 start
Timmy12 13:37, 25 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 15:57, 25 October 2006 start
Timmy12 16:12, 25 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 18:41, 25 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 19:02, 25 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 20:01, 25 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 22:06, 25 October 2006 start
Timmy12 00:39, 26 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 01:26, 26 October 2006 start
Mattisse 03:44, 26 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 14:02, 26 October 2006 start
Timmy12 14:31, 26 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 14:42, 26 October 2006 start
Mattisse 02:24, 27 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:22, 27 October 2006 start
Mattisse 12:45, 27 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 15:15, 27 October 2006 start 
Mattisse 20:56, 27 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 21:15, 27 October 2006 start
Timmy12 00:48, 28 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 03:54, 28 October 2006 single edit

Timmy12 11:28, 28 October 2006 start
Timmy12 12:11, 28 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 13:50, 28 October 2006 start
Mattisse 16:17, 28 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 19:37, 28 October 2006 start
Timmy12 22:10, 28 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 00:36, 29 October 2006 start
Mattisse 01:35, 29 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 11:15, 29 October 2006 start
Mattisse 16:15, 29 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 18:47, 29 October 2006 start
Mattisse 00:29, 30 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 02:51, 30 October 2006 start
Mattisse 04:25, 30 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 11:11, 30 October 2006 start
Mattisse 17:39, 30 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 20:27, 30 October 2006 start
Timmy12 23:04, 30 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 00:45, 31 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 02:29, 31 October 2006 start
Mattisse 03:16, 31 October 2006 stop

Timmy12 13:34, 31 October 2006 start
Timmy12 13:35, 31 October 2006 stop

Mattisse 16:48, 31 October 2006 single edit

Mattisse 19:33, 31 October 2006 start
Mattisse 02:54, 1 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 11:28, 1 November 2006 start
Mattisse 16:23, 1 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 17:48, 1 November 2006 start
Timmy12 18:22, 1 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 18:30, 1 November 2006 start
Mattisse 00:53, 2 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 01:47, 2 November 2006 start
Timmy12 02:33, 2 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:55, 2 November 2006 start
Mattisse 14:18, 2 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 17:34, 2 November 2006 start
Mattisse 20:54, 2 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 22:20, 2 November 2006 start
Mattisse 03:14, 3 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 03:33, 3 November 2006 start
Timmy12 04:14, 3 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 13:01, 3 November 2006 start
Mattisse 13:23, 3 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 13:45, 3 November 2006 start
Timmy12 14:17, 3 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 15:13, 3 November 2006 start
Mattisse 20:40, 3 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 20:54, 3 November 2006 start
Timmy12 22:11, 3 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 22:28, 3 November 2006 start
Mattisse 23:18, 3 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 23:29, 3 November 2006 single edit

Mattisse 00:00, 4 November 2006 start
Mattisse 04:04, 4 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 04:28, 4 November 2006 start
Timmy12 04:35, 4 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 13:04, 4 November 2006 start
Mattisse 23:46, 4 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 00:08, 5 November 2006 start
Timmy12 01:46, 5 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 15:33, 5 November 2006 start
Mattisse 15:39, 5 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 17:10, 5 November 2006 start
Mattisse 19:52, 5 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 21:11, 5 November 2006 start
Mattisse 02:05, 6 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 12:19, 6 November 2006 start
Mattisse 16:10, 6 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 18:19, 6 November 2006 start
Mattisse 02:17, 7 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 11:22, 7 November 2006 start
Mattisse 13:48, 7 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 15:03, 7 November 2006 start
Mattisse 15:53, 7 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 17:01, 7 November 2006 start
Mattisse 03:46, 8 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 08:09, 8 November 2006 start
Timmy12 08:54, 8 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 11:14, 8 November 2006 single edit

Timmy12 13:30, 8 November 2006 start
Timmy12 14:09, 8 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 14:25, 8 November 2006 start
Mattisse 14:36, 8 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 17:52, 8 November 2006 start
Mattisse 19:56, 8 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 21:26, 8 November 2006 start
Mattisse 22:31, 8 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 23:46, 8 November 2006 single edit

Mattisse 23:58, 8 November 2006 start
Mattisse 05:01, 9 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 11:43, 9 November 2006 start
Mattisse 13:29, 9 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 15:04, 9 November 2006 start
Mattisse 22:10, 9 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 01:29, 10 November 2006 single edit

Mattisse 03:19, 10 November 2006 start
Mattisse 05:33, 10 November 2006 stop

Timmy12 05:52, 10 November 2006 single edit

Timmy12 13:28, 10 November 2006 start
Timmy12 14:47, 10 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 16:27, 10 November 2006 start
Mattisse 16:43, 10 November 2006 stop

Mattisse 18:16, 10 November 2006 start
Mattisse 19:54, 10 November 2006 stop

Further observation

Less than an hour after Blnguyen posts this on AN/I, Mattisse posts this to her advocate, then archives her talk page with a look of finality about it. [220]. She knew that H.D. had presented just the same kind of evidence as had just been used to detect Ekajati and H.D. Coincidence? I think not. 999 (Talk) 04:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator BlNguyen's assertion about no overlapping editing between Ekajati and Hanuman Das proves to be false

On November 14, Ekajati starts editing at 14:24 and ends at 15:05 and Hanuman Das posts to Mattise's talk page at 14:59. On November 13, Ekajati starts editing at 14:51 and ends at 15:24, while Hanuman Das post on Ekajati's talk page at 15:08. On November 1st, Hanuman Das startes editing at 15:43 and ends at 15:54, while Ekajati edits Tantra at 15:51 and posts on Hanuman Das' talk page at 15:52. I'm sure more examples could be found. 999 (Talk) 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background to Hanuman Das

• Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Starts Wikipedia life in October 2004. Edits Eastern mysticism type articles, as well as occult content.
• Account is initially known as
  Adityanath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - signs here
  as Adityanath.
• Only about 200 edits until March 2006, when major activity starts.
• Hanuman_Das has been involved in sockpuppetry before - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Adityanath
  • Straw poll vote stacking with Louis_Baba and Chai_Walla - Talk:Mahavatar_Babaji/Archive_1#Vote
  • Large scale group reverting on March 17, Nath - [221] - lots of reverts
  • Same thing on Mahavatar Babaji - sockpuppets reverting each other - [222]
  • 999 becomes active on April 3 [223]
  • Adityanath is blocked [224] April 3rd 2006, 19.43 UTC, for 24 hours by Gator1, for 3RR violation. It is for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiv-Goraksha Babaji, although not written in the block log, it is written at Special:Undelete/User_talk:Adityanath. In the deleted talk page of Adityanath, Hanuman_Das declares that he is on Wikibreak and leaving the account, and the user pages and talk pages are deleted under U1.
    • Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created at 23.43 April 3,
  • Adityanath requests a name change to Hanuman_Das the following day. [225].
  • Ekajati shows very high level of skill for a newbie [226] - Edit summary on first edit, and consistently straight away. Also uses the minor edit button. A comparison to the editing pattern of Hanuman_Das at the same time April 5-6 [227], shows that both are busy disambiguating instances of "Adinath" - both textbookly with edit summaries and marked as minor edits - very good etiquette for a new user - Ekajati also knows how to create redirects in the first 20 odd edits as well.
  • Within two days of registering and 40 edits, Ekajati finds her way to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Gurudev_Mahendranath on April 5, and votes to keep the article, which HD has also voted to keep, under his old name "Adityanath".
  • Then she votes to keep at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath, along with the other confirmed socks of HD.

In response to what 999 said above, on review, I found a total of 4 edits out of 2000 by Ekajati, which did "overlap" with HD, however, they were four separate instances of one edit wedged between the other, but the single edit was in a 4-5 minute pause by the other account. I did an experiment with User:Blnguyen1 and found that I could edit alternately every 30s. Apart from that the edits never overlap, although there are frequent changeovers of less than an hour, but no intersections. I am also scanning through 999's contribs and have found no overlap from April until July of either accounts.

More coming soon.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Have you recused yourself from arbitration in order to join one side of this issue against the other? If not, and if you are truly disturbed by sockpuppetry (regardless, it seems, of whether it was used for wrongdoing), why have you ignored the actions of Mattisse yet blocked Ekajati for 2 months? Is this to prevent Ekajati from participating in this arbitration? Rosencomet 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse has already been dealt with and stopped. The fact that these guys have been claiming the high ground persistently and harping on about sockpuppets while using them at the same time in the same arbitration, says that they won't stop voluntarily. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have located a post where Hanuman Das leaves his IP lying about, for a technical check. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this. HD = Ekajati. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this also. 999, Ek, HD, are all in the same city. 999 became active on April 3, coinciding with Adityanath's block, and immediately finds itself at the related AfDs and favourite articles [228] like Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath. A check of the contribs shows similarly interweaved edits. A check of the history of pages like Lu Sheng-yen where only two other established editors have edited it in 15 months, seems rather unusual. So blocked also.

Sockpuppet usage

Given the above linkages, we can that

• After Adityanath was blocked for 24 hrs [229] on 19.43 April 3, Ekajati evades the block [230] as does 999 [[231].
• HD was blocked from 7.21 Oct 31 until 14.22 Nov 1 [232], and Ekajati evades it [233], and so does 999 [234].
• AfD votestacking -
  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual transmutation, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morning_Glory_Zell-Ravenheart (3), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taylor_Ellwood
  , vote stacking, brackets indicate a triple vote.

I'd like to present the editing of Stewart Farrar as a kind of "case study" of the actual editing.

• The article was started as a longish stub July 1 2005. There was no mention of any speaking engagements.
• By January 26 2006, the article had expanded considerably [235]. There was no mention of any speaking engagements.
• There was a brief to-do about the quality of referencing, instigated by GBYork. 999's first edit to the article is part of this. My understaning is that this was part of a campaign by GBYork that 999 was keeping an eye on or mass-reverting.
• On September 28 2006, Rosencomet inserts a mention of the subject's appearance at the Starwood festival, along with a link to his website.
• The article remains untouched, except for a wikification/unreverted testing edit, until MaxReg takes up the quality-of-referencing issue again. Ekajati makes their first edit to the article, and there is a brief low-key edit war for two days. My understanding again is that this is another campaign / reaction to a campaign issue not related to this specific article. The issue is addressed on the talkpage, however, and the referencing is improved. In the course of this, I note in an edit summary that I'm not sure why we need the Rosencomet.com reference, but format it as a reference.
• User:Paul Pigman
  , Rosencomet, and 999.
• User:Ali-oops, who started the article, removes the unreferenced statement on November 16, and again on December 4. I point out that at this point, the two "primary editors" of the article have expressed either doubt, or outright rejection, of the relevance of the statement. Rosencomet continues to revert it back into the article. Slow-paced edit warring continues.
• Kathryn NicDhàna joins in on December 15. Obviously, the issue remains unresolved, but there is no further edit warring.
• Rosencomet's editing on January 17 is an attempt to expand the Bibliography section. Rosencomet does not add his website back to the article.
• The article as of this timestamp does not contain any mention of Starwood / The Association for Consciousness Exploration / Rosencomet.com.

I hope that this might in some way be useful. Jkelly 01:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, Stewart Farrar is a poor example in one respect: it, and Big Brother and the Holding Company, were the only contentious edits occuring after the early December program I entered into to eliminate the external links from articles based on the consensus being arrived at in the mediation and the Rfc on the links. If you look at that here [236], you'll see that although the consensus seemed to be that the external links should go, there were just as many people saying that the internal links were acceptable as not, and much discussion of when such links were appropriate. Around Dec 3rd and 4th several editors and myself eliminated the external links but left the internal ones, although Stewart Farrar was one of the few cases where the others insisted on eliminating the mention of Starwood entirely, though there seemed to be no need for this. You will also find in the Rfc that the people who kept deleting the mention had agreed not to mess with any of the links until the mediation was over. If you look at my contribs, you'll find that since around December 4th the only reverting I have done regarding links has been Stewart Farrar and Big Brother (a different issue, involving a reference to Halley DeVestern's appearance with them at Starwood, that ended when I supplied a 3rd party citation), except to delete links in an attempt to SATISFY those arguing against them. All I'm saying is that rather than picking as a case study something typical, you've chosen perhaps the most contentious instance of them all, and the most recent. Rosencomet 04:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article is really the only one involved that I've been paying any attention to, and I'm entirely open to the idea that it wasn't typical. The descriptions on the workshop page seem to be focusing on pages you created, so I thought it might be useful to show how the editing played out on a pre-existing article. Incidentally, I left out the fact that the article gained

good article status in early December. Jkelly 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]