all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 5 arbitrators are currently active and non-recused, so 3 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about an organization you are deeply involved with. However, such editing is not prohibited, if editing is responsible.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is adequate in practice, but not infallible, and should be applied with some care. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The locus of this dispute is editing of the articles Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and Winterstar Symposium, and insertion of links to the Starwood festival in other articles by Rosencomet (talk · contribs). Rosencomet also created numerous articles on artists who participate in these events. The articles attracted the attention of several editors with interests in neo-paganism articles, who eventually divided into two camps. The group that argued that Starwood artists were not notable and were engaged in removing Starwood links included Paul_Pigman (talk · contribs), Timmy12 (talk · contribs), Mattisse (talk · contribs), WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs), BostonMA (talk · contribs) and Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs). Defenders of the Starwood links and artists include Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), 999 (talk · contribs) and Ekajati (talk · contribs). It is alleged that the conflict degenerated into edit warring and harassment.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) User:Rosencomet is reasonably believed to be Jeff Rosenbaum, the Executive Director of ACE, LLC, which runs the Starwood and Winter Star events.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is associated with the Association for Consciousness Exploration [1], which stages the Starwood festival and Winterstar Symposium. His first edits to Wikipedia were to greatly enlarge Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [2] and to create numerous articles for performers and presenters (see the evidence page here). Most of these articles contained internal links to Starwood Festival and either contained, or would later come to contain, external web links to http://www.rosencomet.com/starwood.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others. [3] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [4] [5] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) While the removal of Starwood links by Paul Pigman (talk · contribs), WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs) and Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) was contested by Rosencomet and Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das, no evidence has been offered that these editors were disruptive or violated policy by removing the links. The arbitration committee declines to rule on the appropriateness of such links. Such content decisions are best left to editors who are familiar with the subject.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

I think experience has been the teacher here. Based on the lessons he has received, I expect Rosencomet to be able to edit responsibly. Fred Bauder 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agreed. James F. (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• Everything passes with the required majority of 3 arbitrators out of 5, although a fourth will need to participate in order to vote to close the case. Newyorkbrad 16:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We can waive the specific majority required if necessary; not sure whether it is worth grabbing another Arbitrator on-board to push through a clear decision. James F. (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Makes sense, but the policy instructs the clerk to wait for 4 votes to close the case. I wonder how many votes it would take to waive the policy. :) Anyway, just let me know when you want the clerks to close this. Newyorkbrad 20:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All pass 4-0 Thatcher131 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From Talk page:

  I ask that the Arbitrators please see the details I've added to my statement today, under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood#Semi-Statement by Kathryn NicDhàna at the bottom: "Update, 3-19-07". I've also dropped a note about this on Fred's talk page. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Please note this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And there's a rebuttal by Rosencomet. It was originally threaded, I went ahead and moved it back into Rosencomet's section. See this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Move to close. Charles Matthews 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. - SimonP 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Fred Bauder 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. I haven't reviewed this case, but since there seems to be no interest in making any changes to the proposed decision by the involved arbitrators, and since Jdforrester is presently away, in the interest of bringing this case to an expeditious conclusion, I'm voting to close. Paul August ☎ 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]