Case clerk: NuclearWarfare ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Newyorkbrad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive:
Recused
Cirt is longstanding editor in the Wikimedia community with 12 FA, 87 GA, and 152 Dyks, an Administrator on multiple projects, OTRS volunteer, and check user on Wikinews. Jayen466 is a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community who has been involved with a number of BLP clean up initiatives and assisted in a dozen FAs, and a number of GA and DYKs. The situation currently has been brewing for years between various players at various times. I am currently listing the most relevant to the situation as it is now.
As We all know the Santorum mess blew up in the past month. After a failed arbitration request, Jayen466 and Cla68 filed a WP:RFC/U on User:Cirt to address the perception by many editors that he may be engaging in Political activism.
The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions and several editors have agreed at the end of the first week that it is going nowhere. We have generated over 500 kb of hostile debate filled with bad faith and accusations. There are currently two camps at the present that cause arbitration to be needed. Those who feel Cirt actions are contrary to community expectations and those who feel its a witch hunt initiated by pro-cult editors on Cirt. These questions have floated over the entire topic area of "groups alleged to be cults" and related topics.
This recent flare up with the RFC/U has shown my long held thought that a number of editors have in fact argued the above questions in multiple forums and topic areas for years in some cases. These editors represent issues and personal feuds that have been simmering for years. Multiple Arbcom cases have occurred involving many of the above editors and the animosity surrounding those cases persists. I urge arbcom to take action and clarify these issues once and for looking at all editors involved.
Complicated disputes are what arbcom has been founded for. The Community for several years has been unable to decide on any of these issues. Diffs will be provided but I have just spent an hour and 1/2 doing this when I meant to be in bed two hours ago. The parties I have listed will no doubt agree that these accusations have been flung and be able to provide diff between now and tomorrow when I am awake. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 08:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@John Vanderberg, I considered scoping this to Jayen466-Cirt conflict. The reality is that would really leave out alot of problematic material that in my opinion is equally problematic. The Santorum issue was really the last straw for some folks but all other issues are in the cult topic area. That I believe is the crux of it all and many would agree. Cirt's leaving the topic area is irrelevant anyway because we need a finding to decide that. Otherwise We will spend years of sniping over whether he really did do it or not. If We leave the Santorum out of it, I am fine with that as it was only the last straw in the long running dispute. However pretending that is was not a factor in all this only further complicates the issue rather than clarifying it. As I consider the the anti-Scientology stuff just as much activism as the Santorum thing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 08:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Will, I am being bold here and lumping them together but its there because a group of the same editors in different topic areas keep getting together and duking it out. It needs to end as it is harmful to both the community and the encyclopedia. Will has been ranting about Cla68 conversations with the banned Herschelkrustofsky for months. Pretending that has not caused problems in other discussions is silly. I will provide diffs in the morning of all this. I think I have clearly laid out a number of accusations that have been tossed by both side in the dispute. I dont stand behind allof them other than they have been said. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 09:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Will,(2) On the clarification of who I drew up as parties here there were to main groups. (1) Those who felt their were sincere problems with Cirt's editing with minimal issues on the those who filed the RFC/U. (2) those who felt the RFC/U was witch hunt on Cirt with no merit by biased editors. There were a lot people in between on the issue who as I left out but I felt editors in those two extreme ends of the camp were the problem. It may be a reasonable move to reduce the list of involved editors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbcom I really hate to draw the net so wide but the reality is there are a number of ongoing feuds that continue to disrupt the process of Encyclopedic content creation. I think if we limit it to the ten points I have outlined in the case would be manageable. Narrowing the scope would only mean those issues would continue to simmer just end up back here in the end. We can either nip these feuds in one big case and get to the bottom of these accusations that keep manifesting in topic area after topic area. Or sit and do it all case by case and pretend that the interrelated editors and conflicts have no relevance. We need to look at things in the big picture of how these editors interact with each. What has gotten us nowhere the little snapshot of each conflict that We have been doing for years now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Will (3) Would you correct the misspelling of my name? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC) @Clerks I have noticed Will Beback has chosen to refer to me as "ResidentApologist" a reference to Cult apologist. I consider such name calling unproductive. I thought this was honest but weird and accidental misspelling. Given it has occurred in two separate statements edit 1 edit 2 would some one please ask him to correct it? I doubt my posting on his user talk page would be productive. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
@NYB, Collect's suggestion seems the best route on dividing the cases. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbcom, Having review my initial statement my hope to knock all these issues off was rather idealistic and having thought through it some more I would suggest narrower scope. I still think however that those issues will have to be resolved at some point in the future but perhaps not this case. I would suggest the following scope
Point 1 requires resolution either way, a motion to prevent further occurrences may be advisable. Though a motion may be advisable it would also leave open for future disputes of whether Cirt "really did engage in it." Ideally We dont want to leave such questions open for people to stir things up.
Point 2 is a very real problem. I think Will Beback raised a very troubling issue on the RFC/U talk page about "Pro-nrm/cult" editors all showing up to "bash" Cirt. From my perspective I see all the same editors show up many Administrative Notice Board threads, AE threads, and RfARB threads that involve editors from the topic area. Will's multiple accusations against editors I find very troubling as it represents long standing problem in the whole topic area. The RFC/U happened to get all the editors involved the Cult/NRM topic area in one place and they predictably duked it out. (with notable exceptions of User:John Carter, User:NestleNW911 and User:CoffeePusher) The sheer number of accusations thrown there is both conveniently collected and representative of the issues that has plagued the topic area for years.
Far too diffuse and nebulous for an ArbCom case with too many parties, too many confused issues and no diffs of misconduct. That is what life is like; it cannot possibly be sorted out by mere mortals. Personal or collective appeals to a deity (or deities) could possibly help, but not ArbCom. Mathsci ( talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This ArbCom request by Resident Anthropologist was unexpected, but I can understand why he is filing it. I don't think Cirt is the problem here. Cirt has acknowledged the RfC, and I think should be allowed some time to show that the concerns have been taken on board. Some of the responses by other editors in the RfC and its talk page, however, have been inappropriate and hurtful. Me, Jayen, and/or several other editors have been compared to the Nazis, been called liars (by Raul654), and accused (by Will Beback) of filing the RfC because of our presumed participation in a religious organization. Again, it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way. Cla68 ( talk) 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I explicitly endorse "The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions". No opinion on the rest of the case is implied.
RFAR is not a petition. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
ResidentAnthropologist seems to be asserting that I'm a bully and have edited in bad faith. ResidentAnthropologist has not engaged in any dispute resolution regarding these accusations, nor does he offer evidence that there is any problem with my editing.
There are ongoing problems with NRM/cult topics, due partly to the active involvement of strongly partisan editors. But the individual topics are so different, and collectively the whole topic involves so many editors, that I don't see how a case could address them all together without going out of control.
Cla68 is correct that I assert that some of the editors who have participated in the current RFC/U about Cirt have a long history of disagreement with him over new religious movements, a history which they do not want to discuss. However the RfC/U was only filed recently and is still quite active. Will Beback talk 08:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to guess how ResidentAnthropologist chose this list of people to include as parties. It appears to be nearly identical to the list of people who've commented on the talk page of the Cirt RFC/U. [2] Will Beback talk 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Roger Davies: Sue Gardner has recently commented favorably on the vigilance with which Wikipedia editors patrol self-serving edits and conflicts of interest. Despite her words, the boundaries of allowable conflicts of interest, the manner in which editors with conflicts of interest are supposed to edit, and the avenues for enforcement of violations are all insufficiently defined in the existing guidelines. However it is not the job of the ArbCom to fix those guidelines. In this case, I am not aware of anyone commenting on "how they vote" or "whether they wear briefs or boxers". There has been recent discussion about how far the COI guideline applies to people who volunteer or contribute to a political campaign. Individual ArbCom members are encouraged to contribute the debates on these issues, but the committee as a whole should not be seeking to rewrite the guideline. This much is clear: if someone is writing about a commercial enterprise then it's appropriate to inquire if they have any financial relationship, and if someone is writing about an individual then it's appropriate to ask if they are acquainted. Such inquiries are not "outing". If editors don't wish to reveal their connections they should not edit the articles where they have a conflict of interest.
Also, Roger Davies refers to issues about SOCK, yet no one here has mentioned anything about violations of that policy here. It's not at all clear what kind of case ArbCom members are voting to accept. Will Beback talk 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@LaRouche articles: Cla68 requested an RFAR in April on this topic which was denied by the committee. [3] Since then there have been only low-level disputes and no significant dispute resolution. It is now a quiet and reasonably peaceable topic. Bringing it into this already complicated case would stir the pot and promote conflict rather than settle any pending problems. Will Beback talk 08:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbitrators: A lot of the material Jayen is adding to the CIRT RFC/U appears to be from a year ago or more. Is this case intended to investigate old disputes or to resolve current ones? When the scope is determined I hope that the time period of concern is identified. Will Beback talk 21:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: the core issue here seems to the conflict between Jayen466 and Cirt, involving biographies of living people, new religious movements, and the interactions of these two editors. Will Beback talk 00:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
@John; in case it is not clear (and note I do not necessarily endorse this view) Cirt changing topics is the matter of concern, because the same issues just surface again in a few months (whether that is his fault or that of others, no comment). In addition the charge of political activism, if in any way true relating to any of these editors, is by far the most serious and wiki-damaging charge. If you examine anything, it should be this.
It will be a long, complex case with lots of evidence I expect. So what. That is the job, I'm afraid, you guys were elected for :) -- Errant ( chat!) 09:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is evidence of political activism by Cirt that is directly related to Scientology. It concerns agitating against politicians who had taken a stance broadly in favour of Scientology:
This type of editing is a major point raised in the RfC/U, and is probably not unique to these articles. If the case is taken, it should be in scope. That's in addition to BLP violations like this, or the conduct described here. -- J N 466 10:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Casliber: I would have been happy to "bury the hatchet", as you put it, had there been an honest acknowledgement from Cirt that editing like that outlined in the above BLPs is indefensible, and damaging to this project. Instead, Cirt very deftly and deliberately sidestepped the RfC, just as he sidestepped the 2007 COFS case, sidestepped the RfAr a couple of weeks back, and is sidestepping this one. And I am getting tired of pointing to policy violations that appeared in our mainspace, and receiving vague ad-hominems based on my supposed religious affiliation in return. My last major edit to the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) article was this. You be the judge if it sounds more or less promotional about its subject than Jose Peralta and Joel Anderson. -- J N 466 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Wnt: See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Cirt expands a 250-word biography of a politician into a 1500-word coatrack by adding 1,250 words on Scientology. IPs who tried to restore the short, factual, article, or add unsourced – or sourced – material to balance the article were reverted and warned for vandalism. And you are saying that Cirt's contributions are holy and wonderful, because they are sourced, and the onus is on other editors to add 125,000 words on other matters than Scientology to balance the article? Are you out of your mind? [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. [33] -- J N 466 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie: God forbid, I was not saying that the RfC/U should remain open if an arbitration case opens, only that it should remain open until a case opens. That's per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing#Closing_due_to_other_dispute_resolution—a case needs to have been accepted and opened before the RfC/U should be closed. -- J N 466 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbitrators: Here is another suggestion re scope: make this a case about Cirt's editing, and examine if there are valid and material concerns in the RfC/U and previous AE threads. If you find that there are, that should vindicate the RfC/U. If you find that Cirt's editing has been above board throughout, and there is no merit in the concerns raised, then we can look at taking action against those who brought the RfC/U – Cla68 and me – and those who endorsed it – User:ResidentAnthropologist, User:Collect, User:SlimVirgin, User:Griswaldo, User:Anthonyhcole, User:B, User:Wikid77, plus perhaps User:DGG, whose outside view was the most critical of Cirt. User:Will Beback's 11th-hour intervention, which started with this post on the RfC/U talk page and prompted RA to file this very broadly scoped request, really muddied the waters rather than adding clarity. I don't think an omnibus case combining such diverse topics as LaRouche and Scientology is going to help. LaRouche was turned down at RfAr fairly recently. A case on Cirt, however, should be fairly compact and enable you to assess both the need for further dispute resolution steps, and address some fundamental questions about BLP editing. -- J N 466 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@Will, the problem is that there seem to be ongoing patterns here, such as starting work on political candidates' biographies soon after their intention to run for office becomes public, or characterising editors' good-faith contributions as disruptive vandalism ( here). -- J N 466 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbitrators: I agree 100% with DGG. Further to BorisG, if you don't want the drama of a case, the problems with Cirt's editing should by now be clear and apparent enough to deal with by motion. -- J N 466 20:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
@Elen: We need a case or motion that addresses what appears to many editors here to be Cirt's promotional editing, especially in support or opposition to candidates' political campaigns. This includes the 2010 New York State Senate election ( Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate), the 2010 Republican primary for the California State Senate ( Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson), the 2010 Nevada Senate elections ( Sharron Angle), and the 2011 Santorum presidency campaign ( Santorum (neologism). The evidence of time-synchronised, non-neutral editing given in the RfC/U is very clear and straightforward here (please review it, if you have not done so already).
We really need you to make a statement that such focused editing by an admin, plainly apt to manipulate the democratic process through Wikimedia projects' visibility, is a breach of the community's trust. All of these elections, with the exception of Santorum, were related to Scientology. If you deal with that, by placing an appropriately scoped sanction and topic ban on Cirt, covering Scientology (widely construed, including Werner Erhard) and politicians' biographies (widely construed), the basis for the repeated disruption described here, here and here, and the associated BLP problems, will simply evaporate. Cirt can continue his quality contributions in other fields that are less controversial, less affected by his POV, and less likely to cause renewed disruption. -- J N 466 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@I'd be more than willing to respect a mutual interaction ban with Cirt provided there are enforceable sanctions in place that ensure that problems such as this will not reoccur. If it is left to Cirt to manage himself and his POV in these areas, reoccurrence of these problems is certain. That is something Cirt's conflicts over the past five years with such diverse editors as User:Scott MacDonald, User:Coren, User:SlimVirgin, User:Lar, User:Delicious carbuncle, User:Bishonen [34], User:Griswaldo, User:THF, User:Njsustain, User:PelleSmith and others should have taught us. It is time for it to stop. -- J N 466 19:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I am involved here solely because I made a coment at the RFC/U. My position there, and here, is that
I suggest that if this case is accepted, that the acts and edits of the actual "involved parties" regarding BLPs will be examined closely and fairly. Collect ( talk) 11:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@everyone - if everyone who edits BLPs is expected to recuse, then that is obviously a silly position to hold <g>.
I would, again, suggest that ArbCom make strong statements about BLPs,
I realize this is a quite controversial position to take, but I would ask that the members of the committee seriously discuss it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@NYB: I'd suggest two separate cases in that case: 1. In re: WP:BLP (as noted above) and 2: In re: Editing about Cults and other groups, religious, political and otherwise. Collect ( talk) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@WBB The statement I gave here was exactly the one I gave at the RFC/U. I suggest that since it attracted apprecialble support that the other editors understood what it said. Would yo like a list of BLPs I have edited? Or what? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Elen: A BLP case would only need to make extemely strong statements about any possible perception of bias in sources, whether to puff or to denigrate the subject of the BLP, and requiring stronger sourcing that YouTube etc. for matters of opinion about anyone (actually, perhaps all opinions should be avoided in BLPs, but that would be up to ArbCom at that point.) On an egoistical note, I think adoption of the basis of WP:PIECE would be sage <g>. The Cult case would address how "cults", religious, political or otherwise, or perceived "cults" should be treated in articles, again likely requiring that "opinions" about such should be avoided as well. IMHO, some of the bggest Wikipedia contretemps are due to opinions used in articles, and categorization of people or groups relying on such opinions rather than on simple statements of fact. Such a position would eliminate more than half the arbitration cases brought. In neither case would ArbCom have to dispose of concerns about a single editor (Cirt) as long as the principles were clearly laid out. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@CMLITC (apologies for the acronym usage): No one has questioned the BLP issue as being of primary importance. A clear majority of those opining at the RFC/U agree on BLPs being a real and substantive issue. The "cult" issue goes to the rationale asserted for the BLP problems, and is thus subsidiary thereto. A strong resolution about the BLP issues would likely alleviate the "cult" sub-problem. And be a far simpler case to decide <g>. Collect ( talk) 13:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Actual examinations of opinions does not show that 2/3 of those opining found absolutely nothing to note - that is an opinion belied by reading the opinions <g>. Collect ( talk) 13:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I participated in the recent discussion around the Santorum (neologism) RfC, and the ongoing Cirt RfCU. I have nothing to say about cult editing but there definitely seems to be two opposing camps here. Good luck with that. As for Cirt, the desired outcome of his RfCU was basically that he abide by specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines. His response was along the lines of, I haven't breached those policies, but it might have looked like it to others, and he reiterated his intention to stay away from BLPs that have political overtones. He has previously undertaken to avoid other areas.
My reading of the RfCU is that he does edit tendentiously, does misrepresent sources to push a view, and does produce embarrassing political advertisements in support of the Anonymous agenda, and blatant commercial advertisements. He doesn't see this, or doesn't see anything wrong with it. Is JN harassing Cirt, or just pointing out bad behaviour when he sees it? He's been accused relentlessly of the former, so it would be good to have an opinion from you. I've seen some of the history and in each case it was JN justifiably, in my opinion, raising questions about inappropriate behaviour. But if you take this on, hopefully you'll examine a bigger sample than I've seen. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Risker. Re: What to focus on? Frankly I think the biggest problem is with administrator oversight of Cirt's behaviour. Cirt is a charming guy. He has worked on articles about unpopular cults and has had to deal with some exceedingly relentless POV pushing zealots, which has won him some bitter enemies and a lot of friends. The admin corps and others now lazily assume any criticism of him is necessarily meritless. Witness Jehochman's closing statement for the Cirt RfCU. I doubt he even read the RfCU page, let alone the discussion behind it. JN and others have raised serious concerns about Cirt's behaviour but, because some have been in dispute with him on new age religion pages, it's assumed they're just zealots out to get Cirt, their motives are impugned and their complaints are dismissed. Over and over again. Cirt is engaged in serious political activism here, and the admin corps is letting it happen. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie. The core issue here is very narrow. Cirt's behaviour should have been seriously scrutinised by the admin corps and dealt with there. For the unique reasons outlined immediately above, this hasn't happened, and considerable resentment has built up. Please don't accept that because Cirt has agreed to avoid the area in future, his behaviour doesn't need addressing. He's done this before. The misuse of sources, misuse of process and tendentiousness just moves into another area. I fully endorse Hobit's statement. Simple, balanced, intelligent scrutiny, and chiding where appropriate will resolve this. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 04:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Cirt. Do you acknowledge you have engaged in political activism here in support of the Anonymous agenda? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@Chase me. The core issue is one editor's problematic behaviours, the most serious of which is using Wikipedia to undermine or promote political candidates in support of the Anonymous agenda. I would also like your opinion on how it is that this editor's problematic behaviours have been ignored for so long by the admin corps. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This is unnecessary. I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. There's no serious problems with the articles about fringe religious groups beyond the usual editing issues. Nor for that matter is there any serious issue with Cirt's editing. In the current RfC about Cirt, about twice as many editors have said that there is no substantial problem with his editing than have claimed there is. Indeed, there are only six users (two initial and four endorsements) who have endorsed the main claim. That goes up to 11 users when one includes the next piece. In contrast, look for example at Gamaliel's opinion which sees minimal issues and at one point goes as far as to include the line "Are you fucking kidding me?" in regard to some of the claimed evidence against Cirt. That opinion has 21 endorsers. It seems clear that the communal consensus is that there's no serious issue here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As per User:ErrantX. I am willing to join in. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@RFC closed. - As I see it, the way the RFCuser in regard to User:Cirt has been closed by someone - User:Jehochman - clearly considered to be involved just adds weight and demonstrates why the the Arbitration request is required. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@JoshuaZ - User:Jayen appears to (and no one is suggesting otherwise) write NPOV content of high quality so there is no need for anyone to "go after it" - and nobody has. User:Cirt on the other hand has written content (multiple articles) that has been divisive, disruptive, and in violation of core policy, called promotional, and been considered to be attacking and beneficial to off wiki campaigns and has been complained about and deleted and discussed at length. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Semitransgenic - I have no idea how you think your uninvolved and that as an uninvolved user you think its one side "with an axe to grind" attacking the other - In WP:ARBSCI - one of your alternative accounts - User:Voxpopulis was named as one of the "Low activity single purpose accounts (5) The following editors are single purpose accounts who have contributed towards creating a hostile environment:" - User:Voxpopulis and is actually WP:topic banned from Scientology - "(11) The following editors are topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account:" User:Voxpopulis - As such User:Semitransgenic is topic banned from Scientology and clearly not "uninvolved." under a header of "cults" - He was also blocked for using a sockpuppet on an Osho article, I reported him for that. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I stated at the previous, unsuccessful RFAR and in my RFC/U response that I've withdrawn from any area that could be remotely contentious, and I've apologized for creating misgivings in the past. I've returned to serving the project as well as I can in uncontroversial areas, and I wish to continue doing this. In response to Casliber's query "unless the two can agree to bury the hatchet somehow", I undertake to do anything the Committee advises me to do to attempt to resolve any issue that Jayen has with me. — Cirt ( talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In response to the recommentations by Macwhiz regarding suggestions for how I should change my behavior, to prevent future discord:
— Cirt ( talk) 18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I have just closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt, a relatively easy task because there was a solid majority of logic behind one position. It's also inherently unfair for a user to be faced with RFC and RFAR at the same time. Editors should not try to win disputes by filing multiple dispute resolution processes at the same time in an effort to wear down an opponent.
The Committee would do well to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt carefully and familiarise themselves with the shenanigans that went on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt. Past cases to deal with personal feuds have gone no where good. Please be cautious about accepting another "omnibus we-hate-each-other case". The community is well capable of placing an interaction ban, should feuding editors be unable to disengage. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I see two issues that should be investigated:
These questions can be efficiently investigated and decided. Once that is done, remaining issues will be easier to solve, possibly at the community level or failing that, with subsequent arbitration cases. Jehochman Talk 15:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
this escalation from the RFC is unwarranted. The amount of energy Jayen has expended on initiating this process, evidences an unhealthy obsession with Cirt's editing behaviour, one that stretches back to conflict over [ [36]]. We now have two factions, divided along idealogical lines, so framing the debate as somehow having something to do with "the good of the project" is fallacious, because it is clearly the result of resentment and emotional imbalance. We could throw up examples of other editors here, including Jayen, who have edited pages in a fashion that reflects particular idealogical biases, so suggesting that Wikipeida is capable of being a bastion of impartiality, when it is populated by editors with such differing political, religious and philosophical outlooks, is disingenuous. This is primarily about a group of editors with an axe to grind and this "good of the project" flag that is being flown is a smoke screen. -- Semitransgenic ( talk) 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't accept this case because you'll end up doing more harm than good. New disputes are likely to flare up during an ArbCom case like this, consider e.g. what Cla68 is complaining about now (I'm not saying that his complaints have any merit, its just an example of a new dispute coming up). There are a lot of similar disputes that people have learnt to live with, but sometimes a particular issue is too much for a group of editors. But the moment you want to intervene there, all these other hidden disputes will flare up. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I remain convinced that there is a substantial and fundamental problem here that needs to be addressed regarding misusing Wikipedia's own notability and visibility in order to alter perception or notability of a subject. That living person's biographies are the battleground where those disputes tend to be played on makes it imperative that the committee steps in.
I am rather less convinced that this needs to be focused on any specific editor. While it is self evident that specific incidents coalesce around specific editors, the problem is that our rules were not meant to prevent that kind of abuse not that partisans end up abusing them. (This should come as no surprise; our founding principles could not take into account that the project itself would become a major source of notability or that one's Wikipedia article would someday become a critical part of one's public image.) — Coren (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there is the potential for a limited case on the principle of (mis)using Wikipedia to affect how prominent a subject is (as opposed to reflecting how notable the subject is independently). I.e.: using Wikipedia to googlebomb or otherwise make more visible something which would have had limited coverage and to create controversy where none existed (or where it was of limited scope).
If the principles are addressed, then editing behavior becomes possible to address without having to examine each dispute as part of the case itself. — Coren (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If the Committee accepts this case I strongly urge adding User:Jehochman to the list of involved parties. In his comment here he speaks of "shenanigans" but that's just what he is himself engaged in. Many of the comments in the RFC related to Cirt's use of noticeboards and the help of friendly admins to bully other editors or to get out jail free himself directly involve the supportive activities of Jehochman. This editor has a history of running interference for Cirt. That he took it upon himself to close the RFC and to leave a comment chastising those critical of Cirt leaves me speechless. This has gone far enough. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Jehochman. You write: I do not make any substantial number of edits to the topics in dispute here, nor am I actively engaged in any disputes with these editors. Do you make a substantial number of edits to any topics? Not that I can tell. The fact that you have involved yourself in noticeboards, RfAs, and other non-content venues (as opposed to content areas) in ways that defend or promote Cirt does not make you uninvolved. Indeed it makes you more involved since the RfC and the arbitration do not relate to any specific content areas but do directly relate to the behavioral problems of Cirt. I would also like to note that you were clearly wrong about the RfC closing, ontop of being biased. It has been reverted back and that's how it will stand until such time that an Arbitration request is actually accepted on this matter. Griswaldo ( talk) 13:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Sirfozzie. I think there is some confusion over Jayen's remark regarding the RfC. He refers to "standard RfC process" when he suggests it should stay open. Part of that standard process involves closing an RfC once an arbitration has actually started. Georgewilliamherbert is asking for a special exception to close the RfC out of process, "as soon as there is significant indication that the case will be accepted." I agree with Jayen here that the RFC ought to continue until such time that there is an actual Arbitration case open. In other words there should be no break in between just because "there is significant indication that the case will be accepted." Closing the RfC once the case is actually open can be done by any uninvlved admin as part of the normal process. There is no need for GWH's special request. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two or three broad cases here: 1) Cirt-Jayen (and related) 2) Cult activism, and 3) political activism and notability. Other than Coren (who has been up in this whole thing recently), I do not think any of the committee should recuse due to involvement. I am unsure about the structure and level of effort required for such a case. But I do think the normal process might get a little tl,dr for everyone. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I agree that Jehochman is not univolved in a general way to this, as the user is very active on noticeboards and other dispute resolution mechanisms and has firm opinions as to other involved users motivations. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest the arbs reject this. Cirt has to a degree acknowledged the concerns and withdrawn from some areas. It's hard to imagine anything good coming from an arbitration. Coren makes a good point above and I share his concern, but fixing that isn't what the arbcom is for. I'm listed as a party, but don't anticipate taking part. Tom Harrison Talk 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm only mildly involved because I endorsed closure of the RFC, but I remain neutral on the issues here. I urge the committee to take up this case, because I don't think the community can deal with this by itself. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggest rejection. To accept in my view protracts the continued case, as I see it, of Cirt's detractors, who have forum shopped this matter to excess. After a lack of consensus here previously, Cirt's critics failed in the Rfc/U to gain traction with the community. Now this, designed in my view to further discourage a prolific and valued content creator. Cirt has edited difficult areas of the encyclopedia and has made tough calls as an admin; now he is the victim of violators of WP:HARASS and WP:BATTLE as a consequence. Efforts by some of Cirt's critcs to portray themselves as neutral and concerned 'whistleblowers' are without merit. Of special note in the Rfc/U was a later-withdrawn attempt to foment a "Cirt's enablers" list, designed, as are many of these on and off-wiki tactics, to have a chilling effect. NOTE: Though not named as involved, I endorsed in the Rfc/U and have commented elsewhere. For the record I am a previous WMF volunteer both on OTRS and at the Wikimedia offices in San Francisco, and as such have disclosed my identity. Jus da fax 19:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There's enough history of drama that it would probably be helpful to the community if ArbCom could get this sorted out once and for all. However, I do not accept the premise that the RfC/U on Cirt had come to an impasse and needed to be closed. I was in the process of working through the evidence when it was abruptly closed, and I think it entirely possible that uninvolved members of the community could have made some sense of it if we had been given the time. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As I look at the events over the last 24 hours or so, I'd like to suggest the following to the Committee:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Per Risker's request for feedback, I think there is an issue worth studying here w/r/t WP:AGF in the midst of policy disagreements. See the view I expressed in the RFC/U ( here, including comments #3 and #4) — as well as my comment (#5) made to the RFC/U view by Andries ( here).
Regarding my RFC/U view mentioned above, the conflict I had with Cirt "some time back" was over the Another Gospel article — and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (and an understanding of the whole anti-cult, anti-Scientology editing controversy, which I was totally clueless about at the time), I think I can understand how Cirt might have mistaken me for another partisan committed to removing and/or disrupting "unfriendly" material at any cost — though I do still think my attempts to improve this particular article were reasonable (if perhaps not well executed) and were deserving of more respect (or at least more courteous reproof) than I got. This was a year and a half ago, and I probably wouldn't even be bringing it up again now except that it appears Cirt has continued to act overly aggressively with other editors more recently. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There may also be a question here of interpretation of policy. As Griswaldo mentioned in the RfC/U, an editor who questioned the appropriateness of content was quickly accused of disruptive editing by Cirt at AN/I, on the grounds that he had "refused to present reliable secondary sources to back up his spurious claims". Is this a proper interpretation and application of WP:RS? I fear such an interpretation could have the undesired effect of encouraging fringe articles, since it may be extremely difficult, or even impossible, to find a wide selection of reliable secondary sources on a topic that is fundamentally not notable. When the few sources that exist on a topic all appear to go one way, does that mean there is in fact only one generally accepted viewpoint, and that anyone questioning this (but without being able to provide sources supporting their contrary view) must by definition be ignoring WP:RS and committing the wiki-sins of WP:OR, POV pushing, and vandalism? Or might it instead mean that the subject may be so inherently obscure and non-notable that the reason why there are so few sources is that no one knows or cares enough about it to say anything? Cases like this are not always cut and dried, may require a healthy application of common sense, and are arguably one of the reasons for the WP:IAR policy — except that someone proposing to apply WP:IAR may, as a result, open him/herself up to accusations of editing disruptively in defiance of policy. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I am LDS (Mormon) — a fact clearly mentioned on my user page. Some people, of course, consider the LDS church to be a "cult" (mostly mainstream Christians who object to Mormonism on theological grounds). I am, and (I believe) always have been, committed to even-handed and neutral coverage of all religions (including my own) on Wikipedia. My actions w/r/t the Another Gospel article were motivated, not by any desire to suppress information in pursuance of a partisan agenda, but rather out of concern that the page as I originally found it seemed to be unacceptably slanted towards the small-o "orthodox" Christian viewpoint of the book's author. While I do still have concerns over the notability of the topic (see my comments in the preceding paragraph), I and other editors (including Cirt) did eventually manage to broaden and balance the article, making it better than it had been. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Several days ago, I made a comment on Cirt's RFC wherein I said that there should be consequences for people who file an RFC with false or otherwise trumped-up allegations (A large majority of people who commented on that RFC said essentially the same thing: that the allegations made in the RFC against Cirt were bogus, normal editing behavior spun to make it look malicious). Shortly thereafter, Cla68 issued an ultimatum on my talk page, demanding a retraction of my statement within 24 hours, and threatening that he "will act on it" if I did not. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that no such retraction would be forthcoming, and (pursuant to Cla's further demands) went on to document several allegations made by him and Jayen in the RFC that were obviously, objectively false. The whole discussion is worth reading, and can be found here.
In his above RFAR statement, Cla68 snidely comments that "it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way," citing me by name. It takes a hell of lot of chutzpah for someone who uses the RFC process as a form of harassment to bemoan as "inappropriate and hurtful" the community's response to that harassment.
I'm not involved in the underlying sitation here, and I have no opinion one way or the other on whether or not this case should be accepted. But I wanted my rebutal included here as part of the record. And if the arbcom should accept this case, I think it should issue a statement of principle that filing a false RFC is a form of harassment, and an FOF that some of the allegations made in the Cirt RFC were completely false and most of the rest were trumped-up charges pertaining to ordinarily, productive editing behavior. Raul654 ( talk) 23:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I've ever had cause to edit an arbcom-related page, and I'm doing so now in response to Risker's request for feedback about the scope of the case. Risker, I don't think this is about cults, I'm afraid. I think this is about the alleged tactical use of Wikipedia, and tactical use of Wikipedian guidelines and policies, to achieve specific political or semi-political aims. I think its roots are in the email correspondence between SlimVirgin and Cirt, which I believe will have been read by most people editing this page, and which reeks of assumed bad faith and attempted controlling behaviour, so you need to consider that email exchange. The case has also expanded to encompass perceived "factions" of editors who are perceived to be allied with Cirt or SlimVirgin, who are alleged or perceived to have political agendas. These factions are part of the problem and need to be considered as well. But I think the underlying issue here is the way that highly experienced editors are alleged to have evaded or skirted around some rules and tactically employed others for political ends. I also think it's vital to have quite a transparent process here. To the maximum extent possible, it should be clear to cynical observers that nobody is above the law and nobody is entitled to a whitewash. A genuine and thorough investigation must be seen to take place.— S Marshall T/ C 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggest this case be re-titled "Blood feuds" and scoped accordingly. I have no involvement (or interest) in the topic area but see many of the same names we see on the noticeboards, arbitration cases, WR and so on who are constantly trying to get other editors sanctioned for -- well, for whatever real or imagined misdeed they see at the moment. The issues over cults only provide the immediate context. Just as WWII wasn't really about the fate of Danzig, this case isn't really about BLP, neutrality, or any of that stuff. It's about grudges, settling scores, and asserting one's testosterone. The question is whether behavior like this is inevitable as a part of human nature, or whether Arbcom can do anything to curb it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there may well be serious enough issues with Cirt's editing to merit discussion. I was hopeful they could be worked out at the RfC/U however (some progress was being made on the talk page) and I believe Cirt's willingness to step away is enough to address much of that. If this does get accepted, I would like there to be a serious look at the behavior of those who are going after Cirt. Even if they are correct (and I suspect that's going to be "some yes, some no"), the actions of a number of editors have been highly unacceptable in my mind. The essay WP:SEOBOMB started out as pretty much a pure swipe at Cirt--something I found distasteful in the extreme. SlimVirgin has continued to argue for keeping one external link to yet other Cirt-related issues there while ignoring any request for meaningful discussion. I'm also displeased that we went from ArbComm turning down a case to RfC/U and back to ArbComm in record time. The RfC/U was a mess, but not an unsolvable one. I think the community could have come up with a solution. Cirt needed to formally acknowledge past issues and a willingness to stay away from highly controversial issues. Those chasing after Cirt needed to acknowledge that their actions were less-than-ideal (which had already happened in a limited way on the talk page) and they need to agree to let others monitor Cirt and step away from the fray. Instead we are going to spend months going over all this just to reach that same conclusion.
So what do I suggest? Take the case, give people 1 week to build a case that Cirt had highly-biased editing. Give Cirt and others one week to respond. I think you'll end up with a pretty obvious situation where Cirt has some very one-sided writing and that due to Cirt's massive output that's actually the source of real problems. How serious and widespread those problems are, I'm not sure (that's why we pay you the big bucks). Figure out how to deal with that. Probably an admonishment, though maybe just a warning or a noop if the problems are minor 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC). Then look over the hounding and generally bad behavior of some of those who have been chasing after Cirt. Figure out what to do with them (in most or all cases I think an interaction ban perhaps with some admonishment for particular actions would be plenty. The point needs to be made however that you can't hound someone even if they are doing something wrong). Perhaps there is a related problem with those supporting Cirt--if so, I've not seen any evidence of that, but it would certainly be reasonable to pursue here. Basically, there is no reason for this case to drag out for more than a couple of weeks. The only issues I see are A) was Cirt's editing so one-sided as to be a serious problem? If so, how serious? B) Did the folks going after Cirt cross the line in some of their actions? Both can be dealt with pretty quickly. Hobit ( talk) 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please accept this case. With any luck, digging through years of past grievances, posting dozens (hundreds?) of diffs as evidence, making endless "proposed sanction" suggestions on the workshop, and calling each other names will occupy so much of the time of the Hatfields and the McCoys, that they'll stay away from the encyclopedia portion of the project for weeks (or if ArbCom manages it with some skill, months). The final result of the case won't really matter; the benefit to the encyclopedia will be to keep both sides occupied. The least useful editors will self-select by participating heavily in the case; the ones who aren't primarily out for their pound of flesh will ignore it and find something constructive to do instead. You could even make the final decision be to block, indefinitely, the top 10 posters to the workshop page (although by saying it out loud I may have ruined that option). I'm not sure if I would recommend breaking it into several small cases, and dragging it out by handling them one after the other, or leaving it as one omnibus case, which might bog down so much it would take even longer than several cases in series. I leave that to wiser minds. It won't really take too much time out of ArbCom's schedule, because you could pretty much ignore the case completely, and both sides would be so busy slinging mud that they wouldn't notice.
I'm not joking. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I have only been an observer and commentator on the Cirt-Jayen466 feud from the month-old santorum controversy onward, while I understand that the Cirt–Jayen issues around cultic areas have been acute since 2007. An injunction to the parties not to interact with those with opposing views needlessly during the case would be helpful. I proposed a similar idea in the Cirt RfC/U discussion, because of persistent perceptions of " wikihounding" [37] [38] [39] and "bullying" [40] [41] [42] on both sides.
The core issue is an interpersonal dispute between Jayen466 and Cirt, from which all of the accusations of political activism, COI, and pro- and anti-cult editing spring. Whether there is "political activism" or "pro-NRM POV" in certain editors' motives is hotly contested on all sides, [43] [44] [45] but that there is a longstanding disruptive relationship between Cirt and Jayen466 is something with which all parties can agree.
A peripheral, but important issue that has not yet been satisfactorily solved is to what extent the role of editors on internet forums and mailing lists in fomenting opposition to other editors should be tolerated by the community. What would probably be described as canvassing, meatpuppetry, and wikihounding in the case of other venues was tacitly encouraged on Wikipedia Review [46] [47] [48] [49] and WikiEn-l [50] [51] by Jayen466, Delicious Carbuncle, and others in their pursuit of Cirt. The extensive crossposting on such offwiki forums allowed for the proliferation of a lot of bad-faith assumptions that would not have existed otherwise. Quigley ( talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be trending too late to apply what is probably the "right solution" - six to eight trouts and about 12 minnows, and consideration of a mid-term community interaction ban. This is unfortunate, as none of the people involved here are fundamentally bad editors, and I suspect the case is only going to end up with more hard feelings.
If it can't be avoided, I urge the committee to keep in mind that AGF should be really hard to refute about longstanding, well known positive contributors, all around. Even when editors are acting in bad faith torwards one another, in some situations it's clear that they're doing so from a deep desire to do right by the encyclopedia and community, even if there are large teams or cliques who are at odds and fighting.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 06:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the RFC is engendering bad blood at this time and not moving towards constructive resolution, and additionally is redundant to the apparently likely accepted case here; I would like to request a preliminary motion that the RFC is paused and frozen as-is (along with its talk page) as soon as there is significant indication that the case will be accepted, and/or is accepted. All issues should then be rephrased in case-appropriate evidence, evidence talk, workshop, and workshop talk proceedings. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I used to edit cult/NRM area extensively and got into serious conflicts because of this.
I think this is too broad and diffuse for an arb com case. I think there are several issues and they need to be tackled separately, though some combinations are possible.
1. Cirt's alleged activism in politics
2. Jayen's alleged hounding of Cirt.
3. General phenomenon of factions in the cult/NRM area
4. Cirt's alleged activism in Scientology
5. Cirt's editing behavior in general
From an Arbcom perspective, I do not think that nr. 3 will help Wikipedia very much, because the subject is diverse and complex. Besides, except from Scientology the contents of Wikipedia is not bad. I think that there should be a better communication/understanding between anti-cultists and those editors who favor a more lenient view. I think I can help a bit with that, though I admit that I tend to agree with the anti-cultists in most cases. I personally consider the contents of the Scientology set of articles overly critical and showing an obsession with trivia.
Nr. 3 should not be combined with nr. 1, I think.
Allegations of political activism strikes me as the most damaging to Wikipeda. Andries ( talk) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
reply to Wnt who wrote: "I don't think it should ever be an offense for someone like Cirt not to do something, not to add something. The complainers had more than ample opportunity to add any balancing material he missed, so they're just as "guilty" as he is for leaving it out. They must not be allowed to set themselves up as the editors-in-chief who hire and fire the people who write the articles. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)"
I admit that Wnt makes a good point, but I do not have enough knowledge to edit Scientology related articles. I admit that I also felt intimidated, because some editors seem to be obsessed with the subject. Andries ( talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Cirt, no, please continue to edit controversial subjects, because I think you made many good edits. I only have my doubts about Scientology and Santorum, because these are issues that cannot be easily correct by other authors. Andries ( talk) 09:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: +1 (though obviously AC couldn't ignore the case completely after accepting it as both "sides" always notice when there is a lack of supervision; but it may help put an end to it all...see also my comments on the RfC/U talk). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to diminish the efforts of Resident Anthropologist and Jayen466 for the tedious and time-consuming work involved in putting together this case and the RFC/U on Cirt, but I have no hope that anything lasting will come of either of those efforts. I believe that the community at large has become more aware and less tolerant of Cirt's particular brand of POV-pushing. The truly farcical expansion of Santorum (neologism) became the swan song of that account. Having turned a blind eye for so long, it is unlikely that ArbCom will sanction a prolific admin account, despite the numerous violations of WP:BLP that have been unearthed. My involvement in this area was never an interest in new religious movements. My interest is in the fair and consistent application of our policies and rules. All too often when dealing with unpopular figures like Rick Santorum or members of the Church of Scientology, we ignore our own policies.
New religious movements are going to attract biased editors and need to be given extra, impartial scrutiny for exactly that reason. After pleading and agitating for more scrutiny of Scientology-related editing for months now, little has changed. As a handy example, User:Henry Sewell added Grant Cardone to List of Scientologists on 27 June 2011. Although 96 people have that page on their watchlist (and it appears on at least one project watchlist), no one has has removed this violation of WP:BLPCAT, which requires self-identification of religious affiliation. Similarly, Grant Cardone now has been expanded, sourced in part to a Scientology website, to detail Cardone's involvement with Scientology. Is Cardone a Scoentologist? It seems like he is, but how is it relevant to his notability? This is a trivial, but typical, example. If we can't find a way to deal with the obvious and overt cases like this, what hope do we have of maintaining a neutral point of view when the more subtle editor will be back time and time again to push a point of view? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
To get an idea of the scope of this dispute, consider that the same factions are currently involved in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky - even though only two of the parties named here have voted there. The provenance being anti-Cirt activism -> santorum (neologism) -> Lewinsky (neologism) -> wrongful block of User:Kiwi Bomb -> Bernard Lewinsky. This is less the Hatfields and McCoys, more a widespread and ideologically motivated civil war between those who build the encyclopedia and defend those who do against those who tear down the work and try to punish people for doing it. Please, do not just pick out a few people on each side to sanction to teach them not to bother you. I think that in general too many rules and policies have been slanted or misinterpreted to favor those who like to go out and find people to bother, and the inclusionists need some indication of support or we're going to end up with an encyclopedia made entirely of people trying to get each other sanctioned.
Raul654 is right that RfC/U complaints should have some minimum level of quality so they don't become mere personal attacks. When an RfC like that one for Cirt comes up, with so many irrelevant or unreasonable accusations, a truly neutral and uninvolved administrator should pull the plug on the process early on and tell people to come back with a smaller list of charges that have more validity, if they can.
I commented in the Noleander case that it is wrong to look at an "overall pattern" of edits. I would say someone is not a bad editor unless he submits individually bad edits with some frequency. We want police who pull people over because they were doing 75 in a 55, not because they say, "I've been keeping an eye on you, and I don't like the way you drive." I am minded to blame the spirit of the Cirt RfC on this kind of thinking - it's what I was afraid would happen. If ArbCom becomes involved here, I hope it will be to pull back from or at least limit the precedent set there, [52] rather than expanding it.
I don't think it should ever be an offense for someone like Cirt not to do something, not to add something. The complainers had more than ample opportunity to add any balancing material he missed, so they're just as "guilty" as he is for leaving it out. They must not be allowed to set themselves up as the editors-in-chief who hire and fire the people who write the articles.
@JN466 - true, that Angle text looks like it belongs in Second Chance Program, the new article Cirt helped spin off soon after in respect to WP:UNDUE concerns. And I do hate those uncivil canned little warning messages altogether. But putting together that information was an encyclopedic thing to do, and I see nothing ArbCom needs to redress there.
Uninvolved, and bored by and rather ignorant of the substance of the case. I just want to respond to SirFozzie's queries below. The number of named parties and the emotive atmosphere are horrifying. This shows all the signs of becoming an epic Scientology- or climate-change kind of case—lasting five months, generating three quarters of a million words, causing huge drama in the community, and damaging the editorial fabric. At least one arb implied publicly late last year that the Committee is still working out how to deal with mega-nasty cases. Therefore, I wonder whether this one could be approached by making it a high priority to:
It's been suggested below that community RfCs might be a viable part of the process. Could the development of these be set in motion relatively early, under the management of a clerk or two. This case (if accepted) could be model for how the Committee might manage mega-nasties in the future. [267 words] Tony (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(Not sure whether to list myself as "semi-involved", as I was involved with the Pieter Kuiper case some years ago.)
I've been around Wikipedia a fair while now - over five years - and this would have to be the single worst case of procedural bullying of a single user I've ever seen. I've seen over the past two months an almost never-ending continuum of RFCs, re-RFCs, poorly-justified (and even contradictory) allegations being flung around, ArbCom 1, now ArbCom 2. I think Cirt must have nerves of steel not to have retired by now. Considering his abilities and the fact that we are slowly losing editors and not picking up new ones, I would think that some of the behaviour directed at Cirt - in particular the persistent hounding for a number of years by User:Jayen466, the ultra-bad-faith comments by User:Off2riorob and the involved partisan behaviour of some other critics - would have to be a key focus of this case if it is to be accepted. I would hate to think of any editor ever being treated this way again and it would set a truly shameful precedent if that matter was not fully investigated but others were. Orderinchaos 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems we have gone from accusing Cirt of editing the santorum article for political reasons based on the timing of the edits (since disproven [53]) to throwing every charge up to and including misusing the word "several" at him [54] to... making him a cultist?
I don't think the question of Cirt's editing is ripe for ArbCom yet. The RFC/U has not been given enough time, especially considering the holiday weekend in the US just passed.
However, I can see RA's point regarding the fallout from the RFC/U. I have criticized Jayen's RFC/U vocally, because I felt it to presume bad faith, to summarize events while omitting details that were exculpatory for Cirt, [55] [56] selectively quote sources to make them appear more supportive of the indictment than they actually were (while at the same time accusing Cirt of doing the same), [57] mischaracterize conversations between Cirt and other editors, [58] [59], describe Cirt's work with negative language while puffing similar work by others, [60] and generally assume that Cirt's actions came from malice. [61] Now I am named in an RFAR that seemingly implies I acted in bad faith because I might be a cultist.
Cirt's editing does raise questions for me. There are issues to be discussed. However, the RFC/U in question wasn't written to help Cirt, but to accuse him of Wikipedia "high crimes". It was written as a witch hunt. I don't seem to be alone in that opinion. Calling editors that call WP:DUCK on such, while accusations aboud of Cirt "bullying" people with WikiProcess, before ArbCom shocks me. I do not defend Cirt per se; I defend the idea that Wikipedians shouldn't be subject to insinuations, suppositions, inferences, and innuendo in DR that we wouldn't permit in a BLP.
Clearly there are issues for ArbCom to address: Should RFC/Us be accusatory instruments or AGF interventions? Did this RFC/U descend into ad hominem attacks? Must an editor that disagrees with you be "one of them"? Is it appropriate for an RfC/U to infer the motivations of an editor where no solid evidence for such exists, and where alternative explanations are available? Where is the line between "whistleblowing" and "wikihounding"?
ArbCom should accept a case about the behavior of parties in the DR process for Cirt, narrowly construed. Clearly someone needs to better define AGF and civil discourse. It should use care to avoid polarizing the case into two camps; people may agree on a statement without having the same reasons or beliefs about it. It should also find a way to put the Cirt issue to bed once and for all. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to SirFozzie
This should not become an unwieldy omnibus case. Put aside the issues that aren't ripe. Perhaps concentrate not even on Cirt, but on the behavior surrounding the discussion of Cirt's editing as a prerequisite to productive discussion of Cirt's editing. The core issue here isn't Cirt's behavior; it's how the DR process isn't working in this case, and how polarized the issue—and the language used in discussing it—has become. Perhaps this wouldn't be at ArbCom if editors didn't feel free to engage in personal attacks [62], incivility, [63] [64] [65] and whole threads of... I don't even know what to call it, but it just ain't right from either side. [66] [67]
An injunction against unnecessary interaction seems to me more likely to cause trouble than prevent it, given how wide-ranging the discussions are; it would ban a good number of fairly-active editors from interacting, which would harm the project. However, injunctions against specific forms of bad behavior might be appropriate. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to Elen of the Roads
I certainly understand your inclination, and I agree that this RFAR presents difficulties.
However, there has been an awful lot of incivility in and around this issue. Each individual act may not rise to the level of initiating DR procedures, but as a whole, it's a worrying trend. Plus, if one were to file WQAs or RfC/Us on each instance of someone improperly venting, being pigheaded, or otherwise not helping matters, the explosion in DR drama would be staggering. Plus, it would inevitably wind up back here. On the other hand, it may pass unremarked: I've seen some behavior that I just can't believe, but I'd rather get back to editing, and not spend my time filing WQAs that turn into furballs. I haven't been editing Wikipedia long, but it seems like there's a lot of reluctance to call experienced editors to task for incivility.
So, even if ArbCom declines the case as a whole, would it be possible to make some statement regarding the civility of discourse in the matters at hand, perhaps providing admonishments where appropriate? ArbCom is in a position to provide a wake-up call, and stave off allegations of bullying and gamesmanship if someone does decide to pursue DR for the more egregious civility breaches seen in this brouhaha. It might help prevent this from winding up back at ArbCom's doorstep over and over again. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
On scope
The issues I would like to see addressed:
// ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, by far the most serious charge is the rather clearly biased editing on political topics, but this is a part of the POV concentration on scientology=related topics. I consider such editing to be a clear breech of trust, certainly enough to cast doubt on continued functioning as an admin, and also enough to warrant an topic-based editing restriction. The interpersonal conflicts are partly from this, and partly from an extended period of mutual resentment, and an interaction ban, such as seems to have been voluntarily entered into by at least some of the parties, will best deal with it. I don't really see this as the proper place to discuss more general matters--the narrow ones can be dealt with more easily. The almost total failure of the DR process when long-term admins are involved is not going to be solved quickly, and if arb com wants to make some suggestions, it would be best to do it outside of this specific case. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC) @NYB--The only way to assure that Cirt does not drift back again into this area, thus avoiding the need for another full case, would be to provide some enforceable sanctions. And if arb com does not act decisively about something as demonstrably wrong as this from someone as senior and respected as Cirt, when would it act? That part of the case is not he-said, she-said, but obvious plain-view editing. As others have said, any relative newcomer would have been blocked straight out.Most other aspects, such as the interpersonal conflict, or the general nature of editing on cult-related topics, are not as clearly one person's fault. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This case appears to have all the components necessary to ensure more drama and provide less than vague results, few of which may be positive. There are some circumstances in which being uncompromising and polarizing are beneficial to the encyclopedic integrity of our articles...some editors help the project greatly simply by being rigid and unwielding in their positions...if the end result here would reduce the ability to be uncompromising, then the encyclopedia will suffer. Unless the scope of this is greatly reduced, I would strongly suggest arbcom reject this case.-- MONGO 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I would add that in agreement with User:Collect, BLP's and maybe even all bios should not become coatracks for opinions.-- MONGO 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The mess created around the issues mentioned by the filing party does indeed warrant a look by the ArbCom. However I have serious doubts that a maze of inter-related feuds and underlying editing issues can be resolved to the benfit of the encyclopedia and the editing community (well, since ArbCom consists of mere mortals). I would thus suggest that the case or cases need to be more focused (per NYB). I would suggest that the most serious issue is the alleged misuse of Wikipedia (and specifically BLPs) for activist purposes (per Coren and Collect), including, at the most extreme end of the spectrum, writing or substantially expanding biographies of minor political figures in a biased way close to elections. I think this should invole examination of the conduct of the editor or editors in question, but may also involve tuning up of (BLP?) policies if required. Perhaps issues of cults and related feuds can be handled separately.
I would also suggest that Cirt's repeated promises to refrain from editing controversial areas are useful but insufficient, because they at least give a perception that he is avoiding acknowledgement (and scrutiny) of probelmatic behaviour allegged by other parties. - BorisG ( talk) 13:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I would also add that the biggest danger is that the ArbCom case will turn into a battle between the two factions. Not knowing the history of the fued, I don't quite understand what these factions are, but the presence of factions here is clear for everyone to see. I hope the ArbCom in its wisdom will somehow prevent this battle, and will be able to focus on underlying issues, drawing, in particular, on the opinion of uninvolved editors, as well as their own analysis. - BorisG ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I think User:Elen of the Roads makes a good point. The proponents of this case need to go back to the drawing board and draw a much more focused case or cases. I suggest that the main case should evolve around misuse of Wikipedia to promote outside causes, activism, and campaigning. But there may be other ideas. - BorisG ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been far longer than 24 hours since this case received "net four" accept votes... is there a reason this case isn't open yet? TotientDragooned ( talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently has a issue with multiple WP:SPA or nearly SPAs who spend their time over years unbalancing pseudoscience / cult / new religious movement topic areas. If you look at the edit histories of some who have commented here those who belong in this group become obvious. These people do not appear to be here to write a neutral encyclopedia but to promote a POV. They have made multiple attempted to discredit editors who try to add mainstream opinions that disagree with their own. We need better mechanisms to deal with this issue. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember having been involved in this little melodrama, but, hey, maybe some one will disagree. I get the impression that this RfA is maybe almost as big a clusterfuck as the RfC is said to have been, or at least getting there. I think it might really, really help if we had a fairly clearly-defined parameters regarding what the area to be addressed by the proposed arbitration would be. If the Santorum matter, which is a significant concern, that is one thing. The question about editing content relating to alleged "cults" and other groups which have been referred to insultingly is I think another matter entirely. Honestly, as an individual, I can see fair grounds for both, and would actually personally probably support both. But, unless we want the arbitrators to be forced to wade through evidence pages as long as the OED, some sort of limitations on scope would probably be a good idea. John Carter ( talk) 16:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no involvement here, other than a single comment during the santorum RfC last month. I have read most of the comments here, as well as at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Cirt (partially because it's mildly entertaining to see such drama). The exact nature of the problem seems somewhat elusive, but it appears to revolve around a small number of editors, and the topic of idealogical activism. Broad, nearly unanswerable questions being raised are: (1) How do we identify idealogical activism, and when is it okay? (2) When is it okay to accuse other editors of activism? To me, the Santorum fiasco demonstrated that Wikipedia can be effectively used as a tool for idealogical activists (which isn't to say that it was used by activists..). Perhaps this RFAR is Wikipedia experiencing growing pains; hopefully ArbCom will be able to help with some pain-relief. Sorry if this comment was entirely unhelpful. Mlm42 ( talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the way this case is presented, it is confusing and seems to cover too many issues and personalities. However, I have a proposal for re-formulating it so that it can be readily adjudicated: I propose that the case be re-titled "Attack Articles." That seems to be the common denominator. It is not difficult to detect it when someone is cherry-picking the internet for negative source material on a group or individual that he doesn't like, and then giving that material undue weight with unnecessary and redundant detail. The result is always something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If the named individuals are found to have done that, topic bans are in order. It won't hurt the articles, and the editors in question can find other articles where they can be more neutral. Waalkes ( talk) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Notification that I am being discussed here is, as far as I can recall, the first I have heard of this. Conspiracy? That's more scientology's game than mine I'd say. L Ron Hubbard should have stuck to writing fiction and not started believing it. Guy ( Help!) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I became aware of this case by following links from some recent puzzling and somewhat anachronistic edits by an involved party on certain user talk pages. I was once an active poster on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, from which my acquaintance and friendship with several prominent present and former Wikipedia editors stems, but I tired of the field well over a decade ago. My current involvement is nil but I could fairly be characterised as knowing who I trust.
As at least one other editor has suggested there seems to be quite a lot of tribalism and score-settling going on. If the case is accepted I may find time to research this a little and submit evidence. -- TS 01:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Note regarding the apparent delay to opening this case: While this case has reached the net four necessary to open, the Committee is currently discussing specifics regarding the name and scope of this case. In the meantime, the clerks have also requested more actual votes from the committee to (preferably) attain a majority in favor of opening this case, due to the reject vote added tonight and evident contention surrounding the case as a whole. This case will be opened as soon as we get the OK from the Committee. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
For these motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.
The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will:
Obviously, there is some common ground between the cases but the objective is to keep each focused so that they don't become so open-ended that they cannot reasonably be resolved.
Case 1: User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 (only parties)
Case 2: Manipulation of BLPs (current parties, less Cirt and Jayen466)
What is the purpose of the split?
Where to give evidence:
Reminders:
Roger Davies talk 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I asked some questions immediately above. It would really be helpful if they could be answered, as the evidence page for the first case has now been opened. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What is going on with case 2? You opened case one, Cirt/Jayen but where is case 2? Is it ever going to open? Discussion seems to have petered out here about the scope of the case, but you all did pass the motion above so I expect it to open. Please let us know if/when you plan to do so. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Count Iblis ( talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)If, in the 100 pages of evidence and 600 or so diffs, you can find stuff to build a case against any others, I'd be very grateful. The main focus of the pro's has been Cirt, and it didn't hold water.
@Cool Hand Luke: Look, the matter hinges on whether Cirt's perceived policy violations in editing content are a part of the case or not. If you're not prepared to look at his editing, what do I have to complain about Cirt? A couple of dodgy dispute resolutions that did not affect me personally, perhaps, but nothing else. The only problem I have with him is his editing. His only problem is that I complain about his editing. If you are not prepared to look at the merits of my complaints, he can simply ask you to ask me to go away, and stop commenting on his editing. Is that what you want? I am happy with that, but it will not make the problems with his editing go away. You really need to say whether or not the concerns raised in the RfC/U, and endorsed by about two dozen users, are a part of the case or not. What is the difficulty in saying, clearly, whether his content editing will be part of the case, and whether the community will be able to submit evidence in that regard? This motion has been up for five hours. Four or five editors have asked you the same question for the past four hours. Eight of you have commented in that time, but there is still no answer. Is Cirt holding all of your mothers hostage? Has he got his hand on the plug of the Foundation server? Is there a reason why you cannot answer a simple question? -- J N 466 23:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Roger: Thanks for the clarification. -- J N 466 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to note that I shall (literally) be in Alaska for a while, and the one week limit would be nicely difficult for me to handle. My usual haunts (other than an odd moment of wi-fi access somewhere) will await me in early August. I think some others might also have vacation plans, and suggest a couple of weeks at this point would not be an excessive delay. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@ The arbs - to consider:
Very weird decision. A number of editors complained about Cirt's approach to certain BLPs. The AtbCom has retired for deliberations. The verdict: split Cirt and BLPs into two separate cases. Brilliant! - BorisG ( talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we're losing the proper perspective here. When someone joins Wikipedia then after a while, typically, that person gets indoctrinated by Wiki-ideology. The so-called "long term disruptive editors" are those editors where this doesn't happen. But the reverse is, of course, also true. If someone leaves Wikipedia by exercising a RTV right here, then after a while, that person will typically become "de-programmed"; the indoctrination will wear off over time. The RTV conditions will no longer be taken very serious by such users. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Prioryman is obviously someone who ArbCom knows all about, so I don't see what the point is about discussing that editor here. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Grammatical Note from Archaeo
That the Arbitration Committee create a publicly readable mailing list, provisionally called "arbcom-en-public", for case handling and case discussion purposes and that the use of the list be trialled for the above-cases.
To resolve disputes like this, you actually need to do the opposite. You need to have deliberations and interviews with the most involved editors behind closed doors. You can safely drop the Workshop phase of the ArbCom case. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple thoughts. I like something of this idea, I think it would help with the zOMG-conspiracy people. I also agree with Count Iblis, some private discussion with main parties to cases such as this with lots of 'experienced users' would be very helpful in cutting through the tl,dr nature of what is about to happen. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 18:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the attempt at greater transparency. Them From Space 14:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Could the ArbCom please clarify the scope of this case, and which disputes it covers? There are thousands of biographies on Wikipedia, and they've involved hundreds of disputes. Are all BLP disputes that have ever included claims of manipulation part of this case? Will Beback talk 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Why would anybody use a mailing list when they have a perfectly good publicly readable Wiki? In my not inconsiderable experience Wikis are very much superior tools for both debate and consensus-building. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Why not just empower the clerks, with guidance from the Arbs, to remove or archive "excessive" posts and even to remove people who persist in behaving unhelpfully from the proceeding? That would actually be one very laudable precedent that could come from this case and apply to future cases, but if we use a one-time mailing-list solution then I don't think we'll really gain anything in the long run. It seems like a bit of a kludge to avoid the difficult but important task of actually policing ArbCom case pages. MastCell Talk 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The motion to create a publicly readable mailing list does not pass |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
BackgroundThe arbitration committee has proposed the following motion:
General discussion
Arbitrators' voteFor this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who are abstained, so 8 votes are a majority. Motion 1: That the Arbitration Committee create a publicly readable mailing list, provisionally called "arbcom-en-public", for case handling and case discussion purposes and that the use of the list be trialled for the Cirt and Jayen466 & Manipulation of BLPs cases.
|
Case clerk: NuclearWarfare ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Newyorkbrad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive:
Recused
Cirt is longstanding editor in the Wikimedia community with 12 FA, 87 GA, and 152 Dyks, an Administrator on multiple projects, OTRS volunteer, and check user on Wikinews. Jayen466 is a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community who has been involved with a number of BLP clean up initiatives and assisted in a dozen FAs, and a number of GA and DYKs. The situation currently has been brewing for years between various players at various times. I am currently listing the most relevant to the situation as it is now.
As We all know the Santorum mess blew up in the past month. After a failed arbitration request, Jayen466 and Cla68 filed a WP:RFC/U on User:Cirt to address the perception by many editors that he may be engaging in Political activism.
The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions and several editors have agreed at the end of the first week that it is going nowhere. We have generated over 500 kb of hostile debate filled with bad faith and accusations. There are currently two camps at the present that cause arbitration to be needed. Those who feel Cirt actions are contrary to community expectations and those who feel its a witch hunt initiated by pro-cult editors on Cirt. These questions have floated over the entire topic area of "groups alleged to be cults" and related topics.
This recent flare up with the RFC/U has shown my long held thought that a number of editors have in fact argued the above questions in multiple forums and topic areas for years in some cases. These editors represent issues and personal feuds that have been simmering for years. Multiple Arbcom cases have occurred involving many of the above editors and the animosity surrounding those cases persists. I urge arbcom to take action and clarify these issues once and for looking at all editors involved.
Complicated disputes are what arbcom has been founded for. The Community for several years has been unable to decide on any of these issues. Diffs will be provided but I have just spent an hour and 1/2 doing this when I meant to be in bed two hours ago. The parties I have listed will no doubt agree that these accusations have been flung and be able to provide diff between now and tomorrow when I am awake. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 08:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@John Vanderberg, I considered scoping this to Jayen466-Cirt conflict. The reality is that would really leave out alot of problematic material that in my opinion is equally problematic. The Santorum issue was really the last straw for some folks but all other issues are in the cult topic area. That I believe is the crux of it all and many would agree. Cirt's leaving the topic area is irrelevant anyway because we need a finding to decide that. Otherwise We will spend years of sniping over whether he really did do it or not. If We leave the Santorum out of it, I am fine with that as it was only the last straw in the long running dispute. However pretending that is was not a factor in all this only further complicates the issue rather than clarifying it. As I consider the the anti-Scientology stuff just as much activism as the Santorum thing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 08:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Will, I am being bold here and lumping them together but its there because a group of the same editors in different topic areas keep getting together and duking it out. It needs to end as it is harmful to both the community and the encyclopedia. Will has been ranting about Cla68 conversations with the banned Herschelkrustofsky for months. Pretending that has not caused problems in other discussions is silly. I will provide diffs in the morning of all this. I think I have clearly laid out a number of accusations that have been tossed by both side in the dispute. I dont stand behind allof them other than they have been said. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 09:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Will,(2) On the clarification of who I drew up as parties here there were to main groups. (1) Those who felt their were sincere problems with Cirt's editing with minimal issues on the those who filed the RFC/U. (2) those who felt the RFC/U was witch hunt on Cirt with no merit by biased editors. There were a lot people in between on the issue who as I left out but I felt editors in those two extreme ends of the camp were the problem. It may be a reasonable move to reduce the list of involved editors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbcom I really hate to draw the net so wide but the reality is there are a number of ongoing feuds that continue to disrupt the process of Encyclopedic content creation. I think if we limit it to the ten points I have outlined in the case would be manageable. Narrowing the scope would only mean those issues would continue to simmer just end up back here in the end. We can either nip these feuds in one big case and get to the bottom of these accusations that keep manifesting in topic area after topic area. Or sit and do it all case by case and pretend that the interrelated editors and conflicts have no relevance. We need to look at things in the big picture of how these editors interact with each. What has gotten us nowhere the little snapshot of each conflict that We have been doing for years now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Will (3) Would you correct the misspelling of my name? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC) @Clerks I have noticed Will Beback has chosen to refer to me as "ResidentApologist" a reference to Cult apologist. I consider such name calling unproductive. I thought this was honest but weird and accidental misspelling. Given it has occurred in two separate statements edit 1 edit 2 would some one please ask him to correct it? I doubt my posting on his user talk page would be productive. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
@NYB, Collect's suggestion seems the best route on dividing the cases. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbcom, Having review my initial statement my hope to knock all these issues off was rather idealistic and having thought through it some more I would suggest narrower scope. I still think however that those issues will have to be resolved at some point in the future but perhaps not this case. I would suggest the following scope
Point 1 requires resolution either way, a motion to prevent further occurrences may be advisable. Though a motion may be advisable it would also leave open for future disputes of whether Cirt "really did engage in it." Ideally We dont want to leave such questions open for people to stir things up.
Point 2 is a very real problem. I think Will Beback raised a very troubling issue on the RFC/U talk page about "Pro-nrm/cult" editors all showing up to "bash" Cirt. From my perspective I see all the same editors show up many Administrative Notice Board threads, AE threads, and RfARB threads that involve editors from the topic area. Will's multiple accusations against editors I find very troubling as it represents long standing problem in the whole topic area. The RFC/U happened to get all the editors involved the Cult/NRM topic area in one place and they predictably duked it out. (with notable exceptions of User:John Carter, User:NestleNW911 and User:CoffeePusher) The sheer number of accusations thrown there is both conveniently collected and representative of the issues that has plagued the topic area for years.
Far too diffuse and nebulous for an ArbCom case with too many parties, too many confused issues and no diffs of misconduct. That is what life is like; it cannot possibly be sorted out by mere mortals. Personal or collective appeals to a deity (or deities) could possibly help, but not ArbCom. Mathsci ( talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This ArbCom request by Resident Anthropologist was unexpected, but I can understand why he is filing it. I don't think Cirt is the problem here. Cirt has acknowledged the RfC, and I think should be allowed some time to show that the concerns have been taken on board. Some of the responses by other editors in the RfC and its talk page, however, have been inappropriate and hurtful. Me, Jayen, and/or several other editors have been compared to the Nazis, been called liars (by Raul654), and accused (by Will Beback) of filing the RfC because of our presumed participation in a religious organization. Again, it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way. Cla68 ( talk) 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I explicitly endorse "The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions". No opinion on the rest of the case is implied.
RFAR is not a petition. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
ResidentAnthropologist seems to be asserting that I'm a bully and have edited in bad faith. ResidentAnthropologist has not engaged in any dispute resolution regarding these accusations, nor does he offer evidence that there is any problem with my editing.
There are ongoing problems with NRM/cult topics, due partly to the active involvement of strongly partisan editors. But the individual topics are so different, and collectively the whole topic involves so many editors, that I don't see how a case could address them all together without going out of control.
Cla68 is correct that I assert that some of the editors who have participated in the current RFC/U about Cirt have a long history of disagreement with him over new religious movements, a history which they do not want to discuss. However the RfC/U was only filed recently and is still quite active. Will Beback talk 08:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to guess how ResidentAnthropologist chose this list of people to include as parties. It appears to be nearly identical to the list of people who've commented on the talk page of the Cirt RFC/U. [2] Will Beback talk 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Roger Davies: Sue Gardner has recently commented favorably on the vigilance with which Wikipedia editors patrol self-serving edits and conflicts of interest. Despite her words, the boundaries of allowable conflicts of interest, the manner in which editors with conflicts of interest are supposed to edit, and the avenues for enforcement of violations are all insufficiently defined in the existing guidelines. However it is not the job of the ArbCom to fix those guidelines. In this case, I am not aware of anyone commenting on "how they vote" or "whether they wear briefs or boxers". There has been recent discussion about how far the COI guideline applies to people who volunteer or contribute to a political campaign. Individual ArbCom members are encouraged to contribute the debates on these issues, but the committee as a whole should not be seeking to rewrite the guideline. This much is clear: if someone is writing about a commercial enterprise then it's appropriate to inquire if they have any financial relationship, and if someone is writing about an individual then it's appropriate to ask if they are acquainted. Such inquiries are not "outing". If editors don't wish to reveal their connections they should not edit the articles where they have a conflict of interest.
Also, Roger Davies refers to issues about SOCK, yet no one here has mentioned anything about violations of that policy here. It's not at all clear what kind of case ArbCom members are voting to accept. Will Beback talk 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@LaRouche articles: Cla68 requested an RFAR in April on this topic which was denied by the committee. [3] Since then there have been only low-level disputes and no significant dispute resolution. It is now a quiet and reasonably peaceable topic. Bringing it into this already complicated case would stir the pot and promote conflict rather than settle any pending problems. Will Beback talk 08:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbitrators: A lot of the material Jayen is adding to the CIRT RFC/U appears to be from a year ago or more. Is this case intended to investigate old disputes or to resolve current ones? When the scope is determined I hope that the time period of concern is identified. Will Beback talk 21:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: the core issue here seems to the conflict between Jayen466 and Cirt, involving biographies of living people, new religious movements, and the interactions of these two editors. Will Beback talk 00:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
@John; in case it is not clear (and note I do not necessarily endorse this view) Cirt changing topics is the matter of concern, because the same issues just surface again in a few months (whether that is his fault or that of others, no comment). In addition the charge of political activism, if in any way true relating to any of these editors, is by far the most serious and wiki-damaging charge. If you examine anything, it should be this.
It will be a long, complex case with lots of evidence I expect. So what. That is the job, I'm afraid, you guys were elected for :) -- Errant ( chat!) 09:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is evidence of political activism by Cirt that is directly related to Scientology. It concerns agitating against politicians who had taken a stance broadly in favour of Scientology:
This type of editing is a major point raised in the RfC/U, and is probably not unique to these articles. If the case is taken, it should be in scope. That's in addition to BLP violations like this, or the conduct described here. -- J N 466 10:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Casliber: I would have been happy to "bury the hatchet", as you put it, had there been an honest acknowledgement from Cirt that editing like that outlined in the above BLPs is indefensible, and damaging to this project. Instead, Cirt very deftly and deliberately sidestepped the RfC, just as he sidestepped the 2007 COFS case, sidestepped the RfAr a couple of weeks back, and is sidestepping this one. And I am getting tired of pointing to policy violations that appeared in our mainspace, and receiving vague ad-hominems based on my supposed religious affiliation in return. My last major edit to the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) article was this. You be the judge if it sounds more or less promotional about its subject than Jose Peralta and Joel Anderson. -- J N 466 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Wnt: See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Cirt expands a 250-word biography of a politician into a 1500-word coatrack by adding 1,250 words on Scientology. IPs who tried to restore the short, factual, article, or add unsourced – or sourced – material to balance the article were reverted and warned for vandalism. And you are saying that Cirt's contributions are holy and wonderful, because they are sourced, and the onus is on other editors to add 125,000 words on other matters than Scientology to balance the article? Are you out of your mind? [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. [33] -- J N 466 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie: God forbid, I was not saying that the RfC/U should remain open if an arbitration case opens, only that it should remain open until a case opens. That's per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing#Closing_due_to_other_dispute_resolution—a case needs to have been accepted and opened before the RfC/U should be closed. -- J N 466 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbitrators: Here is another suggestion re scope: make this a case about Cirt's editing, and examine if there are valid and material concerns in the RfC/U and previous AE threads. If you find that there are, that should vindicate the RfC/U. If you find that Cirt's editing has been above board throughout, and there is no merit in the concerns raised, then we can look at taking action against those who brought the RfC/U – Cla68 and me – and those who endorsed it – User:ResidentAnthropologist, User:Collect, User:SlimVirgin, User:Griswaldo, User:Anthonyhcole, User:B, User:Wikid77, plus perhaps User:DGG, whose outside view was the most critical of Cirt. User:Will Beback's 11th-hour intervention, which started with this post on the RfC/U talk page and prompted RA to file this very broadly scoped request, really muddied the waters rather than adding clarity. I don't think an omnibus case combining such diverse topics as LaRouche and Scientology is going to help. LaRouche was turned down at RfAr fairly recently. A case on Cirt, however, should be fairly compact and enable you to assess both the need for further dispute resolution steps, and address some fundamental questions about BLP editing. -- J N 466 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@Will, the problem is that there seem to be ongoing patterns here, such as starting work on political candidates' biographies soon after their intention to run for office becomes public, or characterising editors' good-faith contributions as disruptive vandalism ( here). -- J N 466 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@Arbitrators: I agree 100% with DGG. Further to BorisG, if you don't want the drama of a case, the problems with Cirt's editing should by now be clear and apparent enough to deal with by motion. -- J N 466 20:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
@Elen: We need a case or motion that addresses what appears to many editors here to be Cirt's promotional editing, especially in support or opposition to candidates' political campaigns. This includes the 2010 New York State Senate election ( Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate), the 2010 Republican primary for the California State Senate ( Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson), the 2010 Nevada Senate elections ( Sharron Angle), and the 2011 Santorum presidency campaign ( Santorum (neologism). The evidence of time-synchronised, non-neutral editing given in the RfC/U is very clear and straightforward here (please review it, if you have not done so already).
We really need you to make a statement that such focused editing by an admin, plainly apt to manipulate the democratic process through Wikimedia projects' visibility, is a breach of the community's trust. All of these elections, with the exception of Santorum, were related to Scientology. If you deal with that, by placing an appropriately scoped sanction and topic ban on Cirt, covering Scientology (widely construed, including Werner Erhard) and politicians' biographies (widely construed), the basis for the repeated disruption described here, here and here, and the associated BLP problems, will simply evaporate. Cirt can continue his quality contributions in other fields that are less controversial, less affected by his POV, and less likely to cause renewed disruption. -- J N 466 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@I'd be more than willing to respect a mutual interaction ban with Cirt provided there are enforceable sanctions in place that ensure that problems such as this will not reoccur. If it is left to Cirt to manage himself and his POV in these areas, reoccurrence of these problems is certain. That is something Cirt's conflicts over the past five years with such diverse editors as User:Scott MacDonald, User:Coren, User:SlimVirgin, User:Lar, User:Delicious carbuncle, User:Bishonen [34], User:Griswaldo, User:THF, User:Njsustain, User:PelleSmith and others should have taught us. It is time for it to stop. -- J N 466 19:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I am involved here solely because I made a coment at the RFC/U. My position there, and here, is that
I suggest that if this case is accepted, that the acts and edits of the actual "involved parties" regarding BLPs will be examined closely and fairly. Collect ( talk) 11:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@everyone - if everyone who edits BLPs is expected to recuse, then that is obviously a silly position to hold <g>.
I would, again, suggest that ArbCom make strong statements about BLPs,
I realize this is a quite controversial position to take, but I would ask that the members of the committee seriously discuss it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@NYB: I'd suggest two separate cases in that case: 1. In re: WP:BLP (as noted above) and 2: In re: Editing about Cults and other groups, religious, political and otherwise. Collect ( talk) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@WBB The statement I gave here was exactly the one I gave at the RFC/U. I suggest that since it attracted apprecialble support that the other editors understood what it said. Would yo like a list of BLPs I have edited? Or what? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Elen: A BLP case would only need to make extemely strong statements about any possible perception of bias in sources, whether to puff or to denigrate the subject of the BLP, and requiring stronger sourcing that YouTube etc. for matters of opinion about anyone (actually, perhaps all opinions should be avoided in BLPs, but that would be up to ArbCom at that point.) On an egoistical note, I think adoption of the basis of WP:PIECE would be sage <g>. The Cult case would address how "cults", religious, political or otherwise, or perceived "cults" should be treated in articles, again likely requiring that "opinions" about such should be avoided as well. IMHO, some of the bggest Wikipedia contretemps are due to opinions used in articles, and categorization of people or groups relying on such opinions rather than on simple statements of fact. Such a position would eliminate more than half the arbitration cases brought. In neither case would ArbCom have to dispose of concerns about a single editor (Cirt) as long as the principles were clearly laid out. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@CMLITC (apologies for the acronym usage): No one has questioned the BLP issue as being of primary importance. A clear majority of those opining at the RFC/U agree on BLPs being a real and substantive issue. The "cult" issue goes to the rationale asserted for the BLP problems, and is thus subsidiary thereto. A strong resolution about the BLP issues would likely alleviate the "cult" sub-problem. And be a far simpler case to decide <g>. Collect ( talk) 13:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Actual examinations of opinions does not show that 2/3 of those opining found absolutely nothing to note - that is an opinion belied by reading the opinions <g>. Collect ( talk) 13:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I participated in the recent discussion around the Santorum (neologism) RfC, and the ongoing Cirt RfCU. I have nothing to say about cult editing but there definitely seems to be two opposing camps here. Good luck with that. As for Cirt, the desired outcome of his RfCU was basically that he abide by specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines. His response was along the lines of, I haven't breached those policies, but it might have looked like it to others, and he reiterated his intention to stay away from BLPs that have political overtones. He has previously undertaken to avoid other areas.
My reading of the RfCU is that he does edit tendentiously, does misrepresent sources to push a view, and does produce embarrassing political advertisements in support of the Anonymous agenda, and blatant commercial advertisements. He doesn't see this, or doesn't see anything wrong with it. Is JN harassing Cirt, or just pointing out bad behaviour when he sees it? He's been accused relentlessly of the former, so it would be good to have an opinion from you. I've seen some of the history and in each case it was JN justifiably, in my opinion, raising questions about inappropriate behaviour. But if you take this on, hopefully you'll examine a bigger sample than I've seen. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Risker. Re: What to focus on? Frankly I think the biggest problem is with administrator oversight of Cirt's behaviour. Cirt is a charming guy. He has worked on articles about unpopular cults and has had to deal with some exceedingly relentless POV pushing zealots, which has won him some bitter enemies and a lot of friends. The admin corps and others now lazily assume any criticism of him is necessarily meritless. Witness Jehochman's closing statement for the Cirt RfCU. I doubt he even read the RfCU page, let alone the discussion behind it. JN and others have raised serious concerns about Cirt's behaviour but, because some have been in dispute with him on new age religion pages, it's assumed they're just zealots out to get Cirt, their motives are impugned and their complaints are dismissed. Over and over again. Cirt is engaged in serious political activism here, and the admin corps is letting it happen. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie. The core issue here is very narrow. Cirt's behaviour should have been seriously scrutinised by the admin corps and dealt with there. For the unique reasons outlined immediately above, this hasn't happened, and considerable resentment has built up. Please don't accept that because Cirt has agreed to avoid the area in future, his behaviour doesn't need addressing. He's done this before. The misuse of sources, misuse of process and tendentiousness just moves into another area. I fully endorse Hobit's statement. Simple, balanced, intelligent scrutiny, and chiding where appropriate will resolve this. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 04:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Cirt. Do you acknowledge you have engaged in political activism here in support of the Anonymous agenda? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@Chase me. The core issue is one editor's problematic behaviours, the most serious of which is using Wikipedia to undermine or promote political candidates in support of the Anonymous agenda. I would also like your opinion on how it is that this editor's problematic behaviours have been ignored for so long by the admin corps. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This is unnecessary. I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. There's no serious problems with the articles about fringe religious groups beyond the usual editing issues. Nor for that matter is there any serious issue with Cirt's editing. In the current RfC about Cirt, about twice as many editors have said that there is no substantial problem with his editing than have claimed there is. Indeed, there are only six users (two initial and four endorsements) who have endorsed the main claim. That goes up to 11 users when one includes the next piece. In contrast, look for example at Gamaliel's opinion which sees minimal issues and at one point goes as far as to include the line "Are you fucking kidding me?" in regard to some of the claimed evidence against Cirt. That opinion has 21 endorsers. It seems clear that the communal consensus is that there's no serious issue here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As per User:ErrantX. I am willing to join in. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@RFC closed. - As I see it, the way the RFCuser in regard to User:Cirt has been closed by someone - User:Jehochman - clearly considered to be involved just adds weight and demonstrates why the the Arbitration request is required. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@JoshuaZ - User:Jayen appears to (and no one is suggesting otherwise) write NPOV content of high quality so there is no need for anyone to "go after it" - and nobody has. User:Cirt on the other hand has written content (multiple articles) that has been divisive, disruptive, and in violation of core policy, called promotional, and been considered to be attacking and beneficial to off wiki campaigns and has been complained about and deleted and discussed at length. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Semitransgenic - I have no idea how you think your uninvolved and that as an uninvolved user you think its one side "with an axe to grind" attacking the other - In WP:ARBSCI - one of your alternative accounts - User:Voxpopulis was named as one of the "Low activity single purpose accounts (5) The following editors are single purpose accounts who have contributed towards creating a hostile environment:" - User:Voxpopulis and is actually WP:topic banned from Scientology - "(11) The following editors are topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account:" User:Voxpopulis - As such User:Semitransgenic is topic banned from Scientology and clearly not "uninvolved." under a header of "cults" - He was also blocked for using a sockpuppet on an Osho article, I reported him for that. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I stated at the previous, unsuccessful RFAR and in my RFC/U response that I've withdrawn from any area that could be remotely contentious, and I've apologized for creating misgivings in the past. I've returned to serving the project as well as I can in uncontroversial areas, and I wish to continue doing this. In response to Casliber's query "unless the two can agree to bury the hatchet somehow", I undertake to do anything the Committee advises me to do to attempt to resolve any issue that Jayen has with me. — Cirt ( talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In response to the recommentations by Macwhiz regarding suggestions for how I should change my behavior, to prevent future discord:
— Cirt ( talk) 18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I have just closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt, a relatively easy task because there was a solid majority of logic behind one position. It's also inherently unfair for a user to be faced with RFC and RFAR at the same time. Editors should not try to win disputes by filing multiple dispute resolution processes at the same time in an effort to wear down an opponent.
The Committee would do well to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt carefully and familiarise themselves with the shenanigans that went on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt. Past cases to deal with personal feuds have gone no where good. Please be cautious about accepting another "omnibus we-hate-each-other case". The community is well capable of placing an interaction ban, should feuding editors be unable to disengage. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I see two issues that should be investigated:
These questions can be efficiently investigated and decided. Once that is done, remaining issues will be easier to solve, possibly at the community level or failing that, with subsequent arbitration cases. Jehochman Talk 15:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
this escalation from the RFC is unwarranted. The amount of energy Jayen has expended on initiating this process, evidences an unhealthy obsession with Cirt's editing behaviour, one that stretches back to conflict over [ [36]]. We now have two factions, divided along idealogical lines, so framing the debate as somehow having something to do with "the good of the project" is fallacious, because it is clearly the result of resentment and emotional imbalance. We could throw up examples of other editors here, including Jayen, who have edited pages in a fashion that reflects particular idealogical biases, so suggesting that Wikipeida is capable of being a bastion of impartiality, when it is populated by editors with such differing political, religious and philosophical outlooks, is disingenuous. This is primarily about a group of editors with an axe to grind and this "good of the project" flag that is being flown is a smoke screen. -- Semitransgenic ( talk) 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't accept this case because you'll end up doing more harm than good. New disputes are likely to flare up during an ArbCom case like this, consider e.g. what Cla68 is complaining about now (I'm not saying that his complaints have any merit, its just an example of a new dispute coming up). There are a lot of similar disputes that people have learnt to live with, but sometimes a particular issue is too much for a group of editors. But the moment you want to intervene there, all these other hidden disputes will flare up. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I remain convinced that there is a substantial and fundamental problem here that needs to be addressed regarding misusing Wikipedia's own notability and visibility in order to alter perception or notability of a subject. That living person's biographies are the battleground where those disputes tend to be played on makes it imperative that the committee steps in.
I am rather less convinced that this needs to be focused on any specific editor. While it is self evident that specific incidents coalesce around specific editors, the problem is that our rules were not meant to prevent that kind of abuse not that partisans end up abusing them. (This should come as no surprise; our founding principles could not take into account that the project itself would become a major source of notability or that one's Wikipedia article would someday become a critical part of one's public image.) — Coren (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there is the potential for a limited case on the principle of (mis)using Wikipedia to affect how prominent a subject is (as opposed to reflecting how notable the subject is independently). I.e.: using Wikipedia to googlebomb or otherwise make more visible something which would have had limited coverage and to create controversy where none existed (or where it was of limited scope).
If the principles are addressed, then editing behavior becomes possible to address without having to examine each dispute as part of the case itself. — Coren (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If the Committee accepts this case I strongly urge adding User:Jehochman to the list of involved parties. In his comment here he speaks of "shenanigans" but that's just what he is himself engaged in. Many of the comments in the RFC related to Cirt's use of noticeboards and the help of friendly admins to bully other editors or to get out jail free himself directly involve the supportive activities of Jehochman. This editor has a history of running interference for Cirt. That he took it upon himself to close the RFC and to leave a comment chastising those critical of Cirt leaves me speechless. This has gone far enough. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
@Jehochman. You write: I do not make any substantial number of edits to the topics in dispute here, nor am I actively engaged in any disputes with these editors. Do you make a substantial number of edits to any topics? Not that I can tell. The fact that you have involved yourself in noticeboards, RfAs, and other non-content venues (as opposed to content areas) in ways that defend or promote Cirt does not make you uninvolved. Indeed it makes you more involved since the RfC and the arbitration do not relate to any specific content areas but do directly relate to the behavioral problems of Cirt. I would also like to note that you were clearly wrong about the RfC closing, ontop of being biased. It has been reverted back and that's how it will stand until such time that an Arbitration request is actually accepted on this matter. Griswaldo ( talk) 13:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Sirfozzie. I think there is some confusion over Jayen's remark regarding the RfC. He refers to "standard RfC process" when he suggests it should stay open. Part of that standard process involves closing an RfC once an arbitration has actually started. Georgewilliamherbert is asking for a special exception to close the RfC out of process, "as soon as there is significant indication that the case will be accepted." I agree with Jayen here that the RFC ought to continue until such time that there is an actual Arbitration case open. In other words there should be no break in between just because "there is significant indication that the case will be accepted." Closing the RfC once the case is actually open can be done by any uninvlved admin as part of the normal process. There is no need for GWH's special request. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two or three broad cases here: 1) Cirt-Jayen (and related) 2) Cult activism, and 3) political activism and notability. Other than Coren (who has been up in this whole thing recently), I do not think any of the committee should recuse due to involvement. I am unsure about the structure and level of effort required for such a case. But I do think the normal process might get a little tl,dr for everyone. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I agree that Jehochman is not univolved in a general way to this, as the user is very active on noticeboards and other dispute resolution mechanisms and has firm opinions as to other involved users motivations. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest the arbs reject this. Cirt has to a degree acknowledged the concerns and withdrawn from some areas. It's hard to imagine anything good coming from an arbitration. Coren makes a good point above and I share his concern, but fixing that isn't what the arbcom is for. I'm listed as a party, but don't anticipate taking part. Tom Harrison Talk 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm only mildly involved because I endorsed closure of the RFC, but I remain neutral on the issues here. I urge the committee to take up this case, because I don't think the community can deal with this by itself. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggest rejection. To accept in my view protracts the continued case, as I see it, of Cirt's detractors, who have forum shopped this matter to excess. After a lack of consensus here previously, Cirt's critics failed in the Rfc/U to gain traction with the community. Now this, designed in my view to further discourage a prolific and valued content creator. Cirt has edited difficult areas of the encyclopedia and has made tough calls as an admin; now he is the victim of violators of WP:HARASS and WP:BATTLE as a consequence. Efforts by some of Cirt's critcs to portray themselves as neutral and concerned 'whistleblowers' are without merit. Of special note in the Rfc/U was a later-withdrawn attempt to foment a "Cirt's enablers" list, designed, as are many of these on and off-wiki tactics, to have a chilling effect. NOTE: Though not named as involved, I endorsed in the Rfc/U and have commented elsewhere. For the record I am a previous WMF volunteer both on OTRS and at the Wikimedia offices in San Francisco, and as such have disclosed my identity. Jus da fax 19:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There's enough history of drama that it would probably be helpful to the community if ArbCom could get this sorted out once and for all. However, I do not accept the premise that the RfC/U on Cirt had come to an impasse and needed to be closed. I was in the process of working through the evidence when it was abruptly closed, and I think it entirely possible that uninvolved members of the community could have made some sense of it if we had been given the time. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As I look at the events over the last 24 hours or so, I'd like to suggest the following to the Committee:
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Per Risker's request for feedback, I think there is an issue worth studying here w/r/t WP:AGF in the midst of policy disagreements. See the view I expressed in the RFC/U ( here, including comments #3 and #4) — as well as my comment (#5) made to the RFC/U view by Andries ( here).
Regarding my RFC/U view mentioned above, the conflict I had with Cirt "some time back" was over the Another Gospel article — and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (and an understanding of the whole anti-cult, anti-Scientology editing controversy, which I was totally clueless about at the time), I think I can understand how Cirt might have mistaken me for another partisan committed to removing and/or disrupting "unfriendly" material at any cost — though I do still think my attempts to improve this particular article were reasonable (if perhaps not well executed) and were deserving of more respect (or at least more courteous reproof) than I got. This was a year and a half ago, and I probably wouldn't even be bringing it up again now except that it appears Cirt has continued to act overly aggressively with other editors more recently. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There may also be a question here of interpretation of policy. As Griswaldo mentioned in the RfC/U, an editor who questioned the appropriateness of content was quickly accused of disruptive editing by Cirt at AN/I, on the grounds that he had "refused to present reliable secondary sources to back up his spurious claims". Is this a proper interpretation and application of WP:RS? I fear such an interpretation could have the undesired effect of encouraging fringe articles, since it may be extremely difficult, or even impossible, to find a wide selection of reliable secondary sources on a topic that is fundamentally not notable. When the few sources that exist on a topic all appear to go one way, does that mean there is in fact only one generally accepted viewpoint, and that anyone questioning this (but without being able to provide sources supporting their contrary view) must by definition be ignoring WP:RS and committing the wiki-sins of WP:OR, POV pushing, and vandalism? Or might it instead mean that the subject may be so inherently obscure and non-notable that the reason why there are so few sources is that no one knows or cares enough about it to say anything? Cases like this are not always cut and dried, may require a healthy application of common sense, and are arguably one of the reasons for the WP:IAR policy — except that someone proposing to apply WP:IAR may, as a result, open him/herself up to accusations of editing disruptively in defiance of policy. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I am LDS (Mormon) — a fact clearly mentioned on my user page. Some people, of course, consider the LDS church to be a "cult" (mostly mainstream Christians who object to Mormonism on theological grounds). I am, and (I believe) always have been, committed to even-handed and neutral coverage of all religions (including my own) on Wikipedia. My actions w/r/t the Another Gospel article were motivated, not by any desire to suppress information in pursuance of a partisan agenda, but rather out of concern that the page as I originally found it seemed to be unacceptably slanted towards the small-o "orthodox" Christian viewpoint of the book's author. While I do still have concerns over the notability of the topic (see my comments in the preceding paragraph), I and other editors (including Cirt) did eventually manage to broaden and balance the article, making it better than it had been. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Several days ago, I made a comment on Cirt's RFC wherein I said that there should be consequences for people who file an RFC with false or otherwise trumped-up allegations (A large majority of people who commented on that RFC said essentially the same thing: that the allegations made in the RFC against Cirt were bogus, normal editing behavior spun to make it look malicious). Shortly thereafter, Cla68 issued an ultimatum on my talk page, demanding a retraction of my statement within 24 hours, and threatening that he "will act on it" if I did not. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that no such retraction would be forthcoming, and (pursuant to Cla's further demands) went on to document several allegations made by him and Jayen in the RFC that were obviously, objectively false. The whole discussion is worth reading, and can be found here.
In his above RFAR statement, Cla68 snidely comments that "it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way," citing me by name. It takes a hell of lot of chutzpah for someone who uses the RFC process as a form of harassment to bemoan as "inappropriate and hurtful" the community's response to that harassment.
I'm not involved in the underlying sitation here, and I have no opinion one way or the other on whether or not this case should be accepted. But I wanted my rebutal included here as part of the record. And if the arbcom should accept this case, I think it should issue a statement of principle that filing a false RFC is a form of harassment, and an FOF that some of the allegations made in the Cirt RFC were completely false and most of the rest were trumped-up charges pertaining to ordinarily, productive editing behavior. Raul654 ( talk) 23:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I've ever had cause to edit an arbcom-related page, and I'm doing so now in response to Risker's request for feedback about the scope of the case. Risker, I don't think this is about cults, I'm afraid. I think this is about the alleged tactical use of Wikipedia, and tactical use of Wikipedian guidelines and policies, to achieve specific political or semi-political aims. I think its roots are in the email correspondence between SlimVirgin and Cirt, which I believe will have been read by most people editing this page, and which reeks of assumed bad faith and attempted controlling behaviour, so you need to consider that email exchange. The case has also expanded to encompass perceived "factions" of editors who are perceived to be allied with Cirt or SlimVirgin, who are alleged or perceived to have political agendas. These factions are part of the problem and need to be considered as well. But I think the underlying issue here is the way that highly experienced editors are alleged to have evaded or skirted around some rules and tactically employed others for political ends. I also think it's vital to have quite a transparent process here. To the maximum extent possible, it should be clear to cynical observers that nobody is above the law and nobody is entitled to a whitewash. A genuine and thorough investigation must be seen to take place.— S Marshall T/ C 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggest this case be re-titled "Blood feuds" and scoped accordingly. I have no involvement (or interest) in the topic area but see many of the same names we see on the noticeboards, arbitration cases, WR and so on who are constantly trying to get other editors sanctioned for -- well, for whatever real or imagined misdeed they see at the moment. The issues over cults only provide the immediate context. Just as WWII wasn't really about the fate of Danzig, this case isn't really about BLP, neutrality, or any of that stuff. It's about grudges, settling scores, and asserting one's testosterone. The question is whether behavior like this is inevitable as a part of human nature, or whether Arbcom can do anything to curb it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there may well be serious enough issues with Cirt's editing to merit discussion. I was hopeful they could be worked out at the RfC/U however (some progress was being made on the talk page) and I believe Cirt's willingness to step away is enough to address much of that. If this does get accepted, I would like there to be a serious look at the behavior of those who are going after Cirt. Even if they are correct (and I suspect that's going to be "some yes, some no"), the actions of a number of editors have been highly unacceptable in my mind. The essay WP:SEOBOMB started out as pretty much a pure swipe at Cirt--something I found distasteful in the extreme. SlimVirgin has continued to argue for keeping one external link to yet other Cirt-related issues there while ignoring any request for meaningful discussion. I'm also displeased that we went from ArbComm turning down a case to RfC/U and back to ArbComm in record time. The RfC/U was a mess, but not an unsolvable one. I think the community could have come up with a solution. Cirt needed to formally acknowledge past issues and a willingness to stay away from highly controversial issues. Those chasing after Cirt needed to acknowledge that their actions were less-than-ideal (which had already happened in a limited way on the talk page) and they need to agree to let others monitor Cirt and step away from the fray. Instead we are going to spend months going over all this just to reach that same conclusion.
So what do I suggest? Take the case, give people 1 week to build a case that Cirt had highly-biased editing. Give Cirt and others one week to respond. I think you'll end up with a pretty obvious situation where Cirt has some very one-sided writing and that due to Cirt's massive output that's actually the source of real problems. How serious and widespread those problems are, I'm not sure (that's why we pay you the big bucks). Figure out how to deal with that. Probably an admonishment, though maybe just a warning or a noop if the problems are minor 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC). Then look over the hounding and generally bad behavior of some of those who have been chasing after Cirt. Figure out what to do with them (in most or all cases I think an interaction ban perhaps with some admonishment for particular actions would be plenty. The point needs to be made however that you can't hound someone even if they are doing something wrong). Perhaps there is a related problem with those supporting Cirt--if so, I've not seen any evidence of that, but it would certainly be reasonable to pursue here. Basically, there is no reason for this case to drag out for more than a couple of weeks. The only issues I see are A) was Cirt's editing so one-sided as to be a serious problem? If so, how serious? B) Did the folks going after Cirt cross the line in some of their actions? Both can be dealt with pretty quickly. Hobit ( talk) 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please accept this case. With any luck, digging through years of past grievances, posting dozens (hundreds?) of diffs as evidence, making endless "proposed sanction" suggestions on the workshop, and calling each other names will occupy so much of the time of the Hatfields and the McCoys, that they'll stay away from the encyclopedia portion of the project for weeks (or if ArbCom manages it with some skill, months). The final result of the case won't really matter; the benefit to the encyclopedia will be to keep both sides occupied. The least useful editors will self-select by participating heavily in the case; the ones who aren't primarily out for their pound of flesh will ignore it and find something constructive to do instead. You could even make the final decision be to block, indefinitely, the top 10 posters to the workshop page (although by saying it out loud I may have ruined that option). I'm not sure if I would recommend breaking it into several small cases, and dragging it out by handling them one after the other, or leaving it as one omnibus case, which might bog down so much it would take even longer than several cases in series. I leave that to wiser minds. It won't really take too much time out of ArbCom's schedule, because you could pretty much ignore the case completely, and both sides would be so busy slinging mud that they wouldn't notice.
I'm not joking. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I have only been an observer and commentator on the Cirt-Jayen466 feud from the month-old santorum controversy onward, while I understand that the Cirt–Jayen issues around cultic areas have been acute since 2007. An injunction to the parties not to interact with those with opposing views needlessly during the case would be helpful. I proposed a similar idea in the Cirt RfC/U discussion, because of persistent perceptions of " wikihounding" [37] [38] [39] and "bullying" [40] [41] [42] on both sides.
The core issue is an interpersonal dispute between Jayen466 and Cirt, from which all of the accusations of political activism, COI, and pro- and anti-cult editing spring. Whether there is "political activism" or "pro-NRM POV" in certain editors' motives is hotly contested on all sides, [43] [44] [45] but that there is a longstanding disruptive relationship between Cirt and Jayen466 is something with which all parties can agree.
A peripheral, but important issue that has not yet been satisfactorily solved is to what extent the role of editors on internet forums and mailing lists in fomenting opposition to other editors should be tolerated by the community. What would probably be described as canvassing, meatpuppetry, and wikihounding in the case of other venues was tacitly encouraged on Wikipedia Review [46] [47] [48] [49] and WikiEn-l [50] [51] by Jayen466, Delicious Carbuncle, and others in their pursuit of Cirt. The extensive crossposting on such offwiki forums allowed for the proliferation of a lot of bad-faith assumptions that would not have existed otherwise. Quigley ( talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be trending too late to apply what is probably the "right solution" - six to eight trouts and about 12 minnows, and consideration of a mid-term community interaction ban. This is unfortunate, as none of the people involved here are fundamentally bad editors, and I suspect the case is only going to end up with more hard feelings.
If it can't be avoided, I urge the committee to keep in mind that AGF should be really hard to refute about longstanding, well known positive contributors, all around. Even when editors are acting in bad faith torwards one another, in some situations it's clear that they're doing so from a deep desire to do right by the encyclopedia and community, even if there are large teams or cliques who are at odds and fighting.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 06:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the RFC is engendering bad blood at this time and not moving towards constructive resolution, and additionally is redundant to the apparently likely accepted case here; I would like to request a preliminary motion that the RFC is paused and frozen as-is (along with its talk page) as soon as there is significant indication that the case will be accepted, and/or is accepted. All issues should then be rephrased in case-appropriate evidence, evidence talk, workshop, and workshop talk proceedings. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I used to edit cult/NRM area extensively and got into serious conflicts because of this.
I think this is too broad and diffuse for an arb com case. I think there are several issues and they need to be tackled separately, though some combinations are possible.
1. Cirt's alleged activism in politics
2. Jayen's alleged hounding of Cirt.
3. General phenomenon of factions in the cult/NRM area
4. Cirt's alleged activism in Scientology
5. Cirt's editing behavior in general
From an Arbcom perspective, I do not think that nr. 3 will help Wikipedia very much, because the subject is diverse and complex. Besides, except from Scientology the contents of Wikipedia is not bad. I think that there should be a better communication/understanding between anti-cultists and those editors who favor a more lenient view. I think I can help a bit with that, though I admit that I tend to agree with the anti-cultists in most cases. I personally consider the contents of the Scientology set of articles overly critical and showing an obsession with trivia.
Nr. 3 should not be combined with nr. 1, I think.
Allegations of political activism strikes me as the most damaging to Wikipeda. Andries ( talk) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
reply to Wnt who wrote: "I don't think it should ever be an offense for someone like Cirt not to do something, not to add something. The complainers had more than ample opportunity to add any balancing material he missed, so they're just as "guilty" as he is for leaving it out. They must not be allowed to set themselves up as the editors-in-chief who hire and fire the people who write the articles. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)"
I admit that Wnt makes a good point, but I do not have enough knowledge to edit Scientology related articles. I admit that I also felt intimidated, because some editors seem to be obsessed with the subject. Andries ( talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
@Cirt, no, please continue to edit controversial subjects, because I think you made many good edits. I only have my doubts about Scientology and Santorum, because these are issues that cannot be easily correct by other authors. Andries ( talk) 09:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: +1 (though obviously AC couldn't ignore the case completely after accepting it as both "sides" always notice when there is a lack of supervision; but it may help put an end to it all...see also my comments on the RfC/U talk). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to diminish the efforts of Resident Anthropologist and Jayen466 for the tedious and time-consuming work involved in putting together this case and the RFC/U on Cirt, but I have no hope that anything lasting will come of either of those efforts. I believe that the community at large has become more aware and less tolerant of Cirt's particular brand of POV-pushing. The truly farcical expansion of Santorum (neologism) became the swan song of that account. Having turned a blind eye for so long, it is unlikely that ArbCom will sanction a prolific admin account, despite the numerous violations of WP:BLP that have been unearthed. My involvement in this area was never an interest in new religious movements. My interest is in the fair and consistent application of our policies and rules. All too often when dealing with unpopular figures like Rick Santorum or members of the Church of Scientology, we ignore our own policies.
New religious movements are going to attract biased editors and need to be given extra, impartial scrutiny for exactly that reason. After pleading and agitating for more scrutiny of Scientology-related editing for months now, little has changed. As a handy example, User:Henry Sewell added Grant Cardone to List of Scientologists on 27 June 2011. Although 96 people have that page on their watchlist (and it appears on at least one project watchlist), no one has has removed this violation of WP:BLPCAT, which requires self-identification of religious affiliation. Similarly, Grant Cardone now has been expanded, sourced in part to a Scientology website, to detail Cardone's involvement with Scientology. Is Cardone a Scoentologist? It seems like he is, but how is it relevant to his notability? This is a trivial, but typical, example. If we can't find a way to deal with the obvious and overt cases like this, what hope do we have of maintaining a neutral point of view when the more subtle editor will be back time and time again to push a point of view? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
To get an idea of the scope of this dispute, consider that the same factions are currently involved in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky - even though only two of the parties named here have voted there. The provenance being anti-Cirt activism -> santorum (neologism) -> Lewinsky (neologism) -> wrongful block of User:Kiwi Bomb -> Bernard Lewinsky. This is less the Hatfields and McCoys, more a widespread and ideologically motivated civil war between those who build the encyclopedia and defend those who do against those who tear down the work and try to punish people for doing it. Please, do not just pick out a few people on each side to sanction to teach them not to bother you. I think that in general too many rules and policies have been slanted or misinterpreted to favor those who like to go out and find people to bother, and the inclusionists need some indication of support or we're going to end up with an encyclopedia made entirely of people trying to get each other sanctioned.
Raul654 is right that RfC/U complaints should have some minimum level of quality so they don't become mere personal attacks. When an RfC like that one for Cirt comes up, with so many irrelevant or unreasonable accusations, a truly neutral and uninvolved administrator should pull the plug on the process early on and tell people to come back with a smaller list of charges that have more validity, if they can.
I commented in the Noleander case that it is wrong to look at an "overall pattern" of edits. I would say someone is not a bad editor unless he submits individually bad edits with some frequency. We want police who pull people over because they were doing 75 in a 55, not because they say, "I've been keeping an eye on you, and I don't like the way you drive." I am minded to blame the spirit of the Cirt RfC on this kind of thinking - it's what I was afraid would happen. If ArbCom becomes involved here, I hope it will be to pull back from or at least limit the precedent set there, [52] rather than expanding it.
I don't think it should ever be an offense for someone like Cirt not to do something, not to add something. The complainers had more than ample opportunity to add any balancing material he missed, so they're just as "guilty" as he is for leaving it out. They must not be allowed to set themselves up as the editors-in-chief who hire and fire the people who write the articles.
@JN466 - true, that Angle text looks like it belongs in Second Chance Program, the new article Cirt helped spin off soon after in respect to WP:UNDUE concerns. And I do hate those uncivil canned little warning messages altogether. But putting together that information was an encyclopedic thing to do, and I see nothing ArbCom needs to redress there.
Uninvolved, and bored by and rather ignorant of the substance of the case. I just want to respond to SirFozzie's queries below. The number of named parties and the emotive atmosphere are horrifying. This shows all the signs of becoming an epic Scientology- or climate-change kind of case—lasting five months, generating three quarters of a million words, causing huge drama in the community, and damaging the editorial fabric. At least one arb implied publicly late last year that the Committee is still working out how to deal with mega-nasty cases. Therefore, I wonder whether this one could be approached by making it a high priority to:
It's been suggested below that community RfCs might be a viable part of the process. Could the development of these be set in motion relatively early, under the management of a clerk or two. This case (if accepted) could be model for how the Committee might manage mega-nasties in the future. [267 words] Tony (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(Not sure whether to list myself as "semi-involved", as I was involved with the Pieter Kuiper case some years ago.)
I've been around Wikipedia a fair while now - over five years - and this would have to be the single worst case of procedural bullying of a single user I've ever seen. I've seen over the past two months an almost never-ending continuum of RFCs, re-RFCs, poorly-justified (and even contradictory) allegations being flung around, ArbCom 1, now ArbCom 2. I think Cirt must have nerves of steel not to have retired by now. Considering his abilities and the fact that we are slowly losing editors and not picking up new ones, I would think that some of the behaviour directed at Cirt - in particular the persistent hounding for a number of years by User:Jayen466, the ultra-bad-faith comments by User:Off2riorob and the involved partisan behaviour of some other critics - would have to be a key focus of this case if it is to be accepted. I would hate to think of any editor ever being treated this way again and it would set a truly shameful precedent if that matter was not fully investigated but others were. Orderinchaos 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems we have gone from accusing Cirt of editing the santorum article for political reasons based on the timing of the edits (since disproven [53]) to throwing every charge up to and including misusing the word "several" at him [54] to... making him a cultist?
I don't think the question of Cirt's editing is ripe for ArbCom yet. The RFC/U has not been given enough time, especially considering the holiday weekend in the US just passed.
However, I can see RA's point regarding the fallout from the RFC/U. I have criticized Jayen's RFC/U vocally, because I felt it to presume bad faith, to summarize events while omitting details that were exculpatory for Cirt, [55] [56] selectively quote sources to make them appear more supportive of the indictment than they actually were (while at the same time accusing Cirt of doing the same), [57] mischaracterize conversations between Cirt and other editors, [58] [59], describe Cirt's work with negative language while puffing similar work by others, [60] and generally assume that Cirt's actions came from malice. [61] Now I am named in an RFAR that seemingly implies I acted in bad faith because I might be a cultist.
Cirt's editing does raise questions for me. There are issues to be discussed. However, the RFC/U in question wasn't written to help Cirt, but to accuse him of Wikipedia "high crimes". It was written as a witch hunt. I don't seem to be alone in that opinion. Calling editors that call WP:DUCK on such, while accusations aboud of Cirt "bullying" people with WikiProcess, before ArbCom shocks me. I do not defend Cirt per se; I defend the idea that Wikipedians shouldn't be subject to insinuations, suppositions, inferences, and innuendo in DR that we wouldn't permit in a BLP.
Clearly there are issues for ArbCom to address: Should RFC/Us be accusatory instruments or AGF interventions? Did this RFC/U descend into ad hominem attacks? Must an editor that disagrees with you be "one of them"? Is it appropriate for an RfC/U to infer the motivations of an editor where no solid evidence for such exists, and where alternative explanations are available? Where is the line between "whistleblowing" and "wikihounding"?
ArbCom should accept a case about the behavior of parties in the DR process for Cirt, narrowly construed. Clearly someone needs to better define AGF and civil discourse. It should use care to avoid polarizing the case into two camps; people may agree on a statement without having the same reasons or beliefs about it. It should also find a way to put the Cirt issue to bed once and for all. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to SirFozzie
This should not become an unwieldy omnibus case. Put aside the issues that aren't ripe. Perhaps concentrate not even on Cirt, but on the behavior surrounding the discussion of Cirt's editing as a prerequisite to productive discussion of Cirt's editing. The core issue here isn't Cirt's behavior; it's how the DR process isn't working in this case, and how polarized the issue—and the language used in discussing it—has become. Perhaps this wouldn't be at ArbCom if editors didn't feel free to engage in personal attacks [62], incivility, [63] [64] [65] and whole threads of... I don't even know what to call it, but it just ain't right from either side. [66] [67]
An injunction against unnecessary interaction seems to me more likely to cause trouble than prevent it, given how wide-ranging the discussions are; it would ban a good number of fairly-active editors from interacting, which would harm the project. However, injunctions against specific forms of bad behavior might be appropriate. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to Elen of the Roads
I certainly understand your inclination, and I agree that this RFAR presents difficulties.
However, there has been an awful lot of incivility in and around this issue. Each individual act may not rise to the level of initiating DR procedures, but as a whole, it's a worrying trend. Plus, if one were to file WQAs or RfC/Us on each instance of someone improperly venting, being pigheaded, or otherwise not helping matters, the explosion in DR drama would be staggering. Plus, it would inevitably wind up back here. On the other hand, it may pass unremarked: I've seen some behavior that I just can't believe, but I'd rather get back to editing, and not spend my time filing WQAs that turn into furballs. I haven't been editing Wikipedia long, but it seems like there's a lot of reluctance to call experienced editors to task for incivility.
So, even if ArbCom declines the case as a whole, would it be possible to make some statement regarding the civility of discourse in the matters at hand, perhaps providing admonishments where appropriate? ArbCom is in a position to provide a wake-up call, and stave off allegations of bullying and gamesmanship if someone does decide to pursue DR for the more egregious civility breaches seen in this brouhaha. It might help prevent this from winding up back at ArbCom's doorstep over and over again. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
On scope
The issues I would like to see addressed:
// ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, by far the most serious charge is the rather clearly biased editing on political topics, but this is a part of the POV concentration on scientology=related topics. I consider such editing to be a clear breech of trust, certainly enough to cast doubt on continued functioning as an admin, and also enough to warrant an topic-based editing restriction. The interpersonal conflicts are partly from this, and partly from an extended period of mutual resentment, and an interaction ban, such as seems to have been voluntarily entered into by at least some of the parties, will best deal with it. I don't really see this as the proper place to discuss more general matters--the narrow ones can be dealt with more easily. The almost total failure of the DR process when long-term admins are involved is not going to be solved quickly, and if arb com wants to make some suggestions, it would be best to do it outside of this specific case. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC) @NYB--The only way to assure that Cirt does not drift back again into this area, thus avoiding the need for another full case, would be to provide some enforceable sanctions. And if arb com does not act decisively about something as demonstrably wrong as this from someone as senior and respected as Cirt, when would it act? That part of the case is not he-said, she-said, but obvious plain-view editing. As others have said, any relative newcomer would have been blocked straight out.Most other aspects, such as the interpersonal conflict, or the general nature of editing on cult-related topics, are not as clearly one person's fault. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This case appears to have all the components necessary to ensure more drama and provide less than vague results, few of which may be positive. There are some circumstances in which being uncompromising and polarizing are beneficial to the encyclopedic integrity of our articles...some editors help the project greatly simply by being rigid and unwielding in their positions...if the end result here would reduce the ability to be uncompromising, then the encyclopedia will suffer. Unless the scope of this is greatly reduced, I would strongly suggest arbcom reject this case.-- MONGO 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I would add that in agreement with User:Collect, BLP's and maybe even all bios should not become coatracks for opinions.-- MONGO 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The mess created around the issues mentioned by the filing party does indeed warrant a look by the ArbCom. However I have serious doubts that a maze of inter-related feuds and underlying editing issues can be resolved to the benfit of the encyclopedia and the editing community (well, since ArbCom consists of mere mortals). I would thus suggest that the case or cases need to be more focused (per NYB). I would suggest that the most serious issue is the alleged misuse of Wikipedia (and specifically BLPs) for activist purposes (per Coren and Collect), including, at the most extreme end of the spectrum, writing or substantially expanding biographies of minor political figures in a biased way close to elections. I think this should invole examination of the conduct of the editor or editors in question, but may also involve tuning up of (BLP?) policies if required. Perhaps issues of cults and related feuds can be handled separately.
I would also suggest that Cirt's repeated promises to refrain from editing controversial areas are useful but insufficient, because they at least give a perception that he is avoiding acknowledgement (and scrutiny) of probelmatic behaviour allegged by other parties. - BorisG ( talk) 13:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I would also add that the biggest danger is that the ArbCom case will turn into a battle between the two factions. Not knowing the history of the fued, I don't quite understand what these factions are, but the presence of factions here is clear for everyone to see. I hope the ArbCom in its wisdom will somehow prevent this battle, and will be able to focus on underlying issues, drawing, in particular, on the opinion of uninvolved editors, as well as their own analysis. - BorisG ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I think User:Elen of the Roads makes a good point. The proponents of this case need to go back to the drawing board and draw a much more focused case or cases. I suggest that the main case should evolve around misuse of Wikipedia to promote outside causes, activism, and campaigning. But there may be other ideas. - BorisG ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been far longer than 24 hours since this case received "net four" accept votes... is there a reason this case isn't open yet? TotientDragooned ( talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently has a issue with multiple WP:SPA or nearly SPAs who spend their time over years unbalancing pseudoscience / cult / new religious movement topic areas. If you look at the edit histories of some who have commented here those who belong in this group become obvious. These people do not appear to be here to write a neutral encyclopedia but to promote a POV. They have made multiple attempted to discredit editors who try to add mainstream opinions that disagree with their own. We need better mechanisms to deal with this issue. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember having been involved in this little melodrama, but, hey, maybe some one will disagree. I get the impression that this RfA is maybe almost as big a clusterfuck as the RfC is said to have been, or at least getting there. I think it might really, really help if we had a fairly clearly-defined parameters regarding what the area to be addressed by the proposed arbitration would be. If the Santorum matter, which is a significant concern, that is one thing. The question about editing content relating to alleged "cults" and other groups which have been referred to insultingly is I think another matter entirely. Honestly, as an individual, I can see fair grounds for both, and would actually personally probably support both. But, unless we want the arbitrators to be forced to wade through evidence pages as long as the OED, some sort of limitations on scope would probably be a good idea. John Carter ( talk) 16:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no involvement here, other than a single comment during the santorum RfC last month. I have read most of the comments here, as well as at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Cirt (partially because it's mildly entertaining to see such drama). The exact nature of the problem seems somewhat elusive, but it appears to revolve around a small number of editors, and the topic of idealogical activism. Broad, nearly unanswerable questions being raised are: (1) How do we identify idealogical activism, and when is it okay? (2) When is it okay to accuse other editors of activism? To me, the Santorum fiasco demonstrated that Wikipedia can be effectively used as a tool for idealogical activists (which isn't to say that it was used by activists..). Perhaps this RFAR is Wikipedia experiencing growing pains; hopefully ArbCom will be able to help with some pain-relief. Sorry if this comment was entirely unhelpful. Mlm42 ( talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the way this case is presented, it is confusing and seems to cover too many issues and personalities. However, I have a proposal for re-formulating it so that it can be readily adjudicated: I propose that the case be re-titled "Attack Articles." That seems to be the common denominator. It is not difficult to detect it when someone is cherry-picking the internet for negative source material on a group or individual that he doesn't like, and then giving that material undue weight with unnecessary and redundant detail. The result is always something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If the named individuals are found to have done that, topic bans are in order. It won't hurt the articles, and the editors in question can find other articles where they can be more neutral. Waalkes ( talk) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Notification that I am being discussed here is, as far as I can recall, the first I have heard of this. Conspiracy? That's more scientology's game than mine I'd say. L Ron Hubbard should have stuck to writing fiction and not started believing it. Guy ( Help!) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I became aware of this case by following links from some recent puzzling and somewhat anachronistic edits by an involved party on certain user talk pages. I was once an active poster on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, from which my acquaintance and friendship with several prominent present and former Wikipedia editors stems, but I tired of the field well over a decade ago. My current involvement is nil but I could fairly be characterised as knowing who I trust.
As at least one other editor has suggested there seems to be quite a lot of tribalism and score-settling going on. If the case is accepted I may find time to research this a little and submit evidence. -- TS 01:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Note regarding the apparent delay to opening this case: While this case has reached the net four necessary to open, the Committee is currently discussing specifics regarding the name and scope of this case. In the meantime, the clerks have also requested more actual votes from the committee to (preferably) attain a majority in favor of opening this case, due to the reject vote added tonight and evident contention surrounding the case as a whole. This case will be opened as soon as we get the OK from the Committee. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
For these motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.
The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will:
Obviously, there is some common ground between the cases but the objective is to keep each focused so that they don't become so open-ended that they cannot reasonably be resolved.
Case 1: User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 (only parties)
Case 2: Manipulation of BLPs (current parties, less Cirt and Jayen466)
What is the purpose of the split?
Where to give evidence:
Reminders:
Roger Davies talk 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I asked some questions immediately above. It would really be helpful if they could be answered, as the evidence page for the first case has now been opened. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What is going on with case 2? You opened case one, Cirt/Jayen but where is case 2? Is it ever going to open? Discussion seems to have petered out here about the scope of the case, but you all did pass the motion above so I expect it to open. Please let us know if/when you plan to do so. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Count Iblis ( talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)If, in the 100 pages of evidence and 600 or so diffs, you can find stuff to build a case against any others, I'd be very grateful. The main focus of the pro's has been Cirt, and it didn't hold water.
@Cool Hand Luke: Look, the matter hinges on whether Cirt's perceived policy violations in editing content are a part of the case or not. If you're not prepared to look at his editing, what do I have to complain about Cirt? A couple of dodgy dispute resolutions that did not affect me personally, perhaps, but nothing else. The only problem I have with him is his editing. His only problem is that I complain about his editing. If you are not prepared to look at the merits of my complaints, he can simply ask you to ask me to go away, and stop commenting on his editing. Is that what you want? I am happy with that, but it will not make the problems with his editing go away. You really need to say whether or not the concerns raised in the RfC/U, and endorsed by about two dozen users, are a part of the case or not. What is the difficulty in saying, clearly, whether his content editing will be part of the case, and whether the community will be able to submit evidence in that regard? This motion has been up for five hours. Four or five editors have asked you the same question for the past four hours. Eight of you have commented in that time, but there is still no answer. Is Cirt holding all of your mothers hostage? Has he got his hand on the plug of the Foundation server? Is there a reason why you cannot answer a simple question? -- J N 466 23:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Roger: Thanks for the clarification. -- J N 466 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to note that I shall (literally) be in Alaska for a while, and the one week limit would be nicely difficult for me to handle. My usual haunts (other than an odd moment of wi-fi access somewhere) will await me in early August. I think some others might also have vacation plans, and suggest a couple of weeks at this point would not be an excessive delay. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@ The arbs - to consider:
Very weird decision. A number of editors complained about Cirt's approach to certain BLPs. The AtbCom has retired for deliberations. The verdict: split Cirt and BLPs into two separate cases. Brilliant! - BorisG ( talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we're losing the proper perspective here. When someone joins Wikipedia then after a while, typically, that person gets indoctrinated by Wiki-ideology. The so-called "long term disruptive editors" are those editors where this doesn't happen. But the reverse is, of course, also true. If someone leaves Wikipedia by exercising a RTV right here, then after a while, that person will typically become "de-programmed"; the indoctrination will wear off over time. The RTV conditions will no longer be taken very serious by such users. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Prioryman is obviously someone who ArbCom knows all about, so I don't see what the point is about discussing that editor here. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Grammatical Note from Archaeo
That the Arbitration Committee create a publicly readable mailing list, provisionally called "arbcom-en-public", for case handling and case discussion purposes and that the use of the list be trialled for the above-cases.
To resolve disputes like this, you actually need to do the opposite. You need to have deliberations and interviews with the most involved editors behind closed doors. You can safely drop the Workshop phase of the ArbCom case. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple thoughts. I like something of this idea, I think it would help with the zOMG-conspiracy people. I also agree with Count Iblis, some private discussion with main parties to cases such as this with lots of 'experienced users' would be very helpful in cutting through the tl,dr nature of what is about to happen. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 18:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the attempt at greater transparency. Them From Space 14:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Could the ArbCom please clarify the scope of this case, and which disputes it covers? There are thousands of biographies on Wikipedia, and they've involved hundreds of disputes. Are all BLP disputes that have ever included claims of manipulation part of this case? Will Beback talk 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Why would anybody use a mailing list when they have a perfectly good publicly readable Wiki? In my not inconsiderable experience Wikis are very much superior tools for both debate and consensus-building. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Why not just empower the clerks, with guidance from the Arbs, to remove or archive "excessive" posts and even to remove people who persist in behaving unhelpfully from the proceeding? That would actually be one very laudable precedent that could come from this case and apply to future cases, but if we use a one-time mailing-list solution then I don't think we'll really gain anything in the long run. It seems like a bit of a kludge to avoid the difficult but important task of actually policing ArbCom case pages. MastCell Talk 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The motion to create a publicly readable mailing list does not pass |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
BackgroundThe arbitration committee has proposed the following motion:
General discussion
Arbitrators' voteFor this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who are abstained, so 8 votes are a majority. Motion 1: That the Arbitration Committee create a publicly readable mailing list, provisionally called "arbcom-en-public", for case handling and case discussion purposes and that the use of the list be trialled for the Cirt and Jayen466 & Manipulation of BLPs cases.
|