Misplaced Pages

Old Discussions

Spam, not-so-wonderful spam

I caught your comment over on Kathryn NicDhàna's talk page and thought I'd give you a few other tidbits to think about. Because of my concern over what I perceive as an overwhelming blanket of linkspam on this matter, I have the majority of these pages with Starwood/Winterstar/ACE et al. links on my watchlist so I'm fairly familiar with these articles. When going through Rosencomet's user contributions, I find only five pages out of his approx. 850 total edits since August 2006 not connected to these links. Of course, not every edit included inserting these links; he did do other edits on these articles. But his edit universe remains very focused on the ACE/Starwood, et al. performers. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a specific group of pages you are particularly interested in; many Wikipedians have pages or groups of pages they keep an eye on. Not proprietary exactly, just interested in what happens on them. Since he used the phrase "as executive director of ACE", his conflict of interest seems blindingly obvious to me. This means he is either Jeff Rosenbaum ("Jeff Rosenbaum is the executive director and a founder of the Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE).") or possibly Joseph Rothenberg, who is co-director of ACE. My vote is mainly on Jeff Rosenbaum, mostly because, after Starwood Festival, that was the second article Rosencomet worked on (he started it actually). Take a look at his early edit history.

Sorry to rant on your talk page. My frustration with the mediation process is making me rather testy with the whole thing. I've put some of this into the Starwood mediation but people either don't agree that this is a very serious problem or are not actually following the links I put in. You're my only hope, Obi Wan. Wait, wrong speech, wrong sentiment, wrong person. Sorry, got lost in my head for a moment. I'm a little unsure whether this is something to stress in the mediation anyway. I want to but then it becomes a personality conflict rather than the spam and conflict of interest issues which I think are at the heart of the matter. I don't have a link for it but Rosencomet even asked once about how to protect "his" pages from being changed by other editors. He's even called other people's edits he disagrees with "vandalism" in his reverting edit summary. That says so much to me. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be brought up as a totally separate issue, since the futility of attempting to get a word in edge-wise is starting to irritate more than just myself at this point... I recall that another "notable wikipedian" got accused of writing his own auto-biography and promoting his own book, in a lot less abrasive manner than the aforementioned individual btw, and it went up for some kind of review and his auto-biography and promotional links were all deleted. So there is definitely a precedent set. You know anything about this process? I am speedily losing confidence in the mediation. - WeniWidiWiki 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know little about taking further steps. Since the mediation has been going on, I've been concerned that escalating it up the food chain would be considered a bad faith action against the mediation process. However, since the principle in this matter seems willing and able to engage in rather extensive and verbose dialectic, effectively burying other's replies and redirecting the conversation, I'm beginning to think such action is necessary. I'm investigating other options at the moment. I note the person hasn't made any edits since the 14th, essentially since the question of his identity and connection to ACE was asked repeatedly and firmly by several people. I'm wondering if he's decided to desist or leave entirely. I've considered a Request for Comment on Rosencomet but I wonder if it will be considered a personal attack. Then again, I feel his edit history speaks for itself. Loudly. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)