Case clerks: Hersfold ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Roger Davies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
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 (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Following requests by email from the principals for extensions to submit evidence, the deadline for submitting evidence has been extended to 15 August 2011. This may well be further extended to allow time to respond to new evidence submitted. Roger Davies talk 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Current word length: 532; diff count: 42.
SPS:
Main contributor:
Generally mocking/negative.
Current word length: 500; diff count: 20.
Here are some more BLP problems from the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt:
User:Cirt created this attacking coat-rack - List of deaths related to Scientology - it directed blame for deaths on the Scientology organization when there was only "claims" of association. User:Cirt created most of it on the 26th May 2010
Here is what User:Cirt created
In the Dec 2010 AFD the coat-racking is discussed and the closure included detail about it. Article was deletion reviewed - which was closed on Jan 7 2011 as endorsed after the AFD closer expanded his deletion rationale .
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Related part of the closures rationale - The title of the article is weaselly; it implies that the deaths were caused by Scientology. Despite having WP:RS which mention both the deaths and that the parties involved were "related to" Scientology, the article is a WP:COATRACK. Of the 4 (four!) examples listed, most of them are related to people with mental health issues following the policy of the CoS which advises against psychiatry. An article on List of deaths related to Catholicism talking about people who refused stem cell treatments would be similarly inappropriate, the discussion of those deaths more properly belongs at Stem cells.
comment - User:Cirt defends his content violations with all of his experience and as noted in my evidence, has been accused and reprimanded for canvassing on more than one occasion - it usually takes months or even years to delete the worst of his policy violating content.
Current word length: 77; diff count: 2.
Other members of the community have found Jayen's interactions with Cirt disruptive. [77] as well as bordering on wikihounding [78] [79]
Cirt's reply to Jayen was pointed and accused Jayen of activities without providing proof.
Jayen466 assumes Cirt made and added templates to Santorum (neologism) to increase its google ranking, while others, most notably User:Rememberway, make valid cases [80] [81] Claims Cirt is forwarding political agendas without a source to make valid the claim [82]
[83] mailing list discussion on the Santorum (neologism) article.
Current word length: 495; diff count: 10.
We have here two editors, both of whom have a large number of edits and long experience. To put the other evidence on this page in context, it is very useful to scan through each editor's user contributions for July 2011.
Obviously, dropping the stick is generally a very good way of dealing with disputes, but here, there seems to be a pattern of dropping out when there appears to be a serious case, only to have the same issues repeat again and again without really fixing them.
Mostly, Jayen has made thoughtful accusations, but sometimes there is the appearance of making too many indiscriminately.
From the RfC/U talk page: [91], [92], [93], [94]: "@Tryptofish: Yes, that is correct. I believe Cirt is a fine editor outside these topic areas."
Given the polarization, I suggest looking for where editors revised their opinions as the discussion went on, rather than counting !votes. For what it's worth, I'll tout this comment [95] I made in an effort to summarize what various editors concluded.
Current word length: 435; diff count: 9.
Please refer to my view at the RfC for a full narrative. The additional commentary in the endorsements of the view by User:Njsustain and User:THF, who are involved in this narrative, are good to read as well.
Current word length: 348; diff count: 30.
Current word length: 148; diff count: 2.
Cirt can be precipitous, but is constructively industrious in this topic area.
Current word length: 163; diff count: 5.
With an edit summary of "add detail, restructure" he removed all discussion of Erhard's participation in Esalen seminars along with the associated reference.
With an edit summary of "description of seminar" he removed a paragraph concerning a reported (and referenced) 1971 revelation and the associated evolution of Erhard's philosophy. This paragraph had been discussed on the talk page previously, but Jayen466 did not participate in that discussion nor initiate a new one.
See this exchange.
Jayen466 alleged a 3RR violation by User:Atomaton here. Atomaton rebutted the allegation, and the report was closed as no violation. Jayen466 continued to argue, but found no support. Atomaton's last edit was a few weeks later, on March 9, 2011.
Jayen466 was involved with an RFC concerning User:Timneu22. There was a discussion on Jayen466's page in which Jayen466 responds to Timneu22's declaration of intent to stop editing with condescension and disbelief [127]. Four days later, Timneu22's final edit asks Jayen "What the hell are you accusing me of now?".
Current word length: 290; diff count: 0.
Current word length: 413; diff count: 2.
I apologize for presenting evidence so late: RL circumstances out of town have restricted my WP activities over the past month.
I’m astonished by the length and intensity of complaints. They involve a portion of my editing over the past few years to do with new religious movements and political BLPs. Many editors have raised valid concerns, including poor sourcing practices, the inclusion of undue negative weight in these topics, and canvassing by posting to multiple user talk pages about ongoing concerns.
I’ve reflected on my past behavior and I realize that these complaints have some validity. I agree that my sourcing practices were inadequate, and that I’ve unwisely included undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs. I think the accusations of canvassing are less valid: there’s a case that I’ve posted on multiple talk pages to seek advice and help from admins about Jayen466’s wikihounding, but this is at the bottom end of the spectrum set out at wp:canvass. Yes, I’ve emailed a user to warn them of potential bias by another user, but again, this is on the mild end of what could be construed as canvassing under the policy.
On the matter of DYKs I’d like to emphasize that it had been a past practice of mine to nominate all eligible articles I’d created or improved as DYK candidates. I’ve since stated I won’t be contributing to the DYK process in the future. I regret the inference that I have engaged in promotional editing; this was not my intention, although I realize how unwise I was to create the impression of this.
This case, and the previous RfC and RFAR, have been a learning experience for me, and I’ve already stated at those forums that I’ve withdrawn from the areas in which my editing has been at issue. I undertake to edit in good faith to benefit the project, and to be sensitive to any complaints that might arise concerning my editing.
Under the circumstances, I believe the following remedies are appropriate, taken from Cbrick77’s entry at the Workshop page.
— Cirt ( talk) 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Current word length: 92; diff count: 1.
I have no doubt that I could find examples of editors attempting to constructively engage with Cirt about the very same issues that have precipitated this case. I actually did attempt to look for examples of such discussions on the user talk pages of Cirt's earlier accounts, but they have been deleted. My search did turn up a comment that I feel encapsulates the issue and should serve as a reminder of just how long this has actually been an issue. Four and a half years ago, User:Sm1969 had this to say:
"I think Smee has really figured out how to game the system. Smee does escalating outrageous behaviour, gets called on it, and then Smee becomes unbelievably contrite and promises not to do it again and portrays herself as the victim of personal attacks; the diffs always speak otherwise. We go through Smee's contrition cycles and there is little administrative record of Smee's misconduct, particularly so if different Admins get involved. Give it about a month and Smee is right back on the same articles again. Few people have the time and wherewithall to challenge Smee, and those that do leave no record because of the contrition cycles, so over 15,000 edits by Smee have accumulated taking Wikipedia in a very slanted direction--not neutral, not accurate and not informative".
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Case clerks: Hersfold ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs ( Talk) & Roger Davies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
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 (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Following requests by email from the principals for extensions to submit evidence, the deadline for submitting evidence has been extended to 15 August 2011. This may well be further extended to allow time to respond to new evidence submitted. Roger Davies talk 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Current word length: 532; diff count: 42.
SPS:
Main contributor:
Generally mocking/negative.
Current word length: 500; diff count: 20.
Here are some more BLP problems from the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt:
User:Cirt created this attacking coat-rack - List of deaths related to Scientology - it directed blame for deaths on the Scientology organization when there was only "claims" of association. User:Cirt created most of it on the 26th May 2010
Here is what User:Cirt created
In the Dec 2010 AFD the coat-racking is discussed and the closure included detail about it. Article was deletion reviewed - which was closed on Jan 7 2011 as endorsed after the AFD closer expanded his deletion rationale .
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Related part of the closures rationale - The title of the article is weaselly; it implies that the deaths were caused by Scientology. Despite having WP:RS which mention both the deaths and that the parties involved were "related to" Scientology, the article is a WP:COATRACK. Of the 4 (four!) examples listed, most of them are related to people with mental health issues following the policy of the CoS which advises against psychiatry. An article on List of deaths related to Catholicism talking about people who refused stem cell treatments would be similarly inappropriate, the discussion of those deaths more properly belongs at Stem cells.
comment - User:Cirt defends his content violations with all of his experience and as noted in my evidence, has been accused and reprimanded for canvassing on more than one occasion - it usually takes months or even years to delete the worst of his policy violating content.
Current word length: 77; diff count: 2.
Other members of the community have found Jayen's interactions with Cirt disruptive. [77] as well as bordering on wikihounding [78] [79]
Cirt's reply to Jayen was pointed and accused Jayen of activities without providing proof.
Jayen466 assumes Cirt made and added templates to Santorum (neologism) to increase its google ranking, while others, most notably User:Rememberway, make valid cases [80] [81] Claims Cirt is forwarding political agendas without a source to make valid the claim [82]
[83] mailing list discussion on the Santorum (neologism) article.
Current word length: 495; diff count: 10.
We have here two editors, both of whom have a large number of edits and long experience. To put the other evidence on this page in context, it is very useful to scan through each editor's user contributions for July 2011.
Obviously, dropping the stick is generally a very good way of dealing with disputes, but here, there seems to be a pattern of dropping out when there appears to be a serious case, only to have the same issues repeat again and again without really fixing them.
Mostly, Jayen has made thoughtful accusations, but sometimes there is the appearance of making too many indiscriminately.
From the RfC/U talk page: [91], [92], [93], [94]: "@Tryptofish: Yes, that is correct. I believe Cirt is a fine editor outside these topic areas."
Given the polarization, I suggest looking for where editors revised their opinions as the discussion went on, rather than counting !votes. For what it's worth, I'll tout this comment [95] I made in an effort to summarize what various editors concluded.
Current word length: 435; diff count: 9.
Please refer to my view at the RfC for a full narrative. The additional commentary in the endorsements of the view by User:Njsustain and User:THF, who are involved in this narrative, are good to read as well.
Current word length: 348; diff count: 30.
Current word length: 148; diff count: 2.
Cirt can be precipitous, but is constructively industrious in this topic area.
Current word length: 163; diff count: 5.
With an edit summary of "add detail, restructure" he removed all discussion of Erhard's participation in Esalen seminars along with the associated reference.
With an edit summary of "description of seminar" he removed a paragraph concerning a reported (and referenced) 1971 revelation and the associated evolution of Erhard's philosophy. This paragraph had been discussed on the talk page previously, but Jayen466 did not participate in that discussion nor initiate a new one.
See this exchange.
Jayen466 alleged a 3RR violation by User:Atomaton here. Atomaton rebutted the allegation, and the report was closed as no violation. Jayen466 continued to argue, but found no support. Atomaton's last edit was a few weeks later, on March 9, 2011.
Jayen466 was involved with an RFC concerning User:Timneu22. There was a discussion on Jayen466's page in which Jayen466 responds to Timneu22's declaration of intent to stop editing with condescension and disbelief [127]. Four days later, Timneu22's final edit asks Jayen "What the hell are you accusing me of now?".
Current word length: 290; diff count: 0.
Current word length: 413; diff count: 2.
I apologize for presenting evidence so late: RL circumstances out of town have restricted my WP activities over the past month.
I’m astonished by the length and intensity of complaints. They involve a portion of my editing over the past few years to do with new religious movements and political BLPs. Many editors have raised valid concerns, including poor sourcing practices, the inclusion of undue negative weight in these topics, and canvassing by posting to multiple user talk pages about ongoing concerns.
I’ve reflected on my past behavior and I realize that these complaints have some validity. I agree that my sourcing practices were inadequate, and that I’ve unwisely included undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs. I think the accusations of canvassing are less valid: there’s a case that I’ve posted on multiple talk pages to seek advice and help from admins about Jayen466’s wikihounding, but this is at the bottom end of the spectrum set out at wp:canvass. Yes, I’ve emailed a user to warn them of potential bias by another user, but again, this is on the mild end of what could be construed as canvassing under the policy.
On the matter of DYKs I’d like to emphasize that it had been a past practice of mine to nominate all eligible articles I’d created or improved as DYK candidates. I’ve since stated I won’t be contributing to the DYK process in the future. I regret the inference that I have engaged in promotional editing; this was not my intention, although I realize how unwise I was to create the impression of this.
This case, and the previous RfC and RFAR, have been a learning experience for me, and I’ve already stated at those forums that I’ve withdrawn from the areas in which my editing has been at issue. I undertake to edit in good faith to benefit the project, and to be sensitive to any complaints that might arise concerning my editing.
Under the circumstances, I believe the following remedies are appropriate, taken from Cbrick77’s entry at the Workshop page.
— Cirt ( talk) 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Current word length: 92; diff count: 1.
I have no doubt that I could find examples of editors attempting to constructively engage with Cirt about the very same issues that have precipitated this case. I actually did attempt to look for examples of such discussions on the user talk pages of Cirt's earlier accounts, but they have been deleted. My search did turn up a comment that I feel encapsulates the issue and should serve as a reminder of just how long this has actually been an issue. Four and a half years ago, User:Sm1969 had this to say:
"I think Smee has really figured out how to game the system. Smee does escalating outrageous behaviour, gets called on it, and then Smee becomes unbelievably contrite and promises not to do it again and portrays herself as the victim of personal attacks; the diffs always speak otherwise. We go through Smee's contrition cycles and there is little administrative record of Smee's misconduct, particularly so if different Admins get involved. Give it about a month and Smee is right back on the same articles again. Few people have the time and wherewithall to challenge Smee, and those that do leave no record because of the contrition cycles, so over 15,000 edits by Smee have accumulated taking Wikipedia in a very slanted direction--not neutral, not accurate and not informative".
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.