User:Wnt/Joint statement/santorum

From WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

Other discussions (as said by User:Coren)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

• The dispute has spread to multiple venues with no end in sight, and RFCs fail to reach anything resembling consensus. Amongst other, the dispute can be viewed on Talk:Santorum (neologism), User talk:Jimbo Wales, Template talk:Sexual slang.

A mutually compatible point of view

I (User:Wnt) believe that the following statements summarize the mutually compatible points of view of User:JoshuaZ, User:Macwhiz, User:Sadads, User:Orderinchaos, User:Will Beback, User:Wnt, User:Sandstein, User:Khazar, User:Jmh649, and User:Shell Kinney. I've summarized the arguments into bullet points below. My hope is that, after a few points are explained, modified, or dropped, we all can agree on a single common position. This may become a case in which it is necessary for the community to formally exercise its power to override ArbCom, and in order to do we need a core consensus to begin. Wnt (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Summarized:

• I don't think this is ripe for arbitration at this time.^[JoshuaZ] There is an RFC underway that has yet to conclude, so not all steps in dispute resolution have failed yet. There's been longstanding community consensus to keep the article; it's survived three deletion discussions. An ARBCOM ruling now, short-circuiting the RFC, would seem premature.^[Macwhiz]

• As long as [people skewer politicians and other celebrities to gain favor or publicity], we're going to end up covering these kinds of issues. This doesn't mean we repeat these stunts as if they were fact (i.e. good editorial decision making and BLP), but we can explore the instances and their effects. Whether or not this term should be its own article or covered elsewhere and what navigation templates it should be in is purely a content decision.^{[Shell Kinney]}

• [We] support retention of the santorum article in the reasoned belief that it is not an intentional attack on Santorum, but exists because Savage's attack on Santorum is unquestionably noteworthy and of encyclopedic value.^[Macwhiz] Many respected news sources have linked to the page directly [4].^[Wnt]

• [We] think that Coren is demonstrating an assumption of pretty bad faith in his claims about Cirt and other editors.^[JoshuaZ] Absent a clear reason to believe Cirt's edits were intentionally malicious, characterizing them as deliberately SEO or "egregious and vicious" seems unsupported.^[Macwhiz] [We] would like to Assume good faith in Coren's actions, however, Coren's actions at Template_talk:Sexual_slang have been very aggressive and the comments have assumed deliberately malicious intentions by other users. His rhetoric has been very similar to several users who have overtly assumed bad faith of other editors, especially Cirt, in discussions related to Santorum (neologism).^[Sadads]

• [Template:Sexual slang is not] making a libelous comment [or claim] about Rick Santorum.^[JoshuaZ Assume for argument that it is a neologism; in that case, it's definitely a sexual one, so it's not unreasonable to add it to Template:Sexual slang. Consensus on that template's talk page was running 16:6 in favor of retaining santorum when Coren unilaterally decided to remove it, citing BLP. [5] Shortly thereafter, Coren removed it from Template:LGBT slang, with no prior talk page discussion, again citing BLP and referring to Template talk:Sexual slang. [6] Given the lack of consensus that Santorum (neologism) violates BLP, those edits trouble me, and I can't see community sanctions arising out of Cirt's edits there.^[Macwhiz] How can one clearly and without error distinguish between listing an article in a category template because there is a reasonable belief that the article is a member of that category, as opposed to listing it to promote the use of a term documented in that article? The point of category templates is to increase the number of links. "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia." How does one know which articles are "bad" to link? How do we distinguish between promoting a term and promoting the article? If Cirt had added links to those templates for any other article, we wouldn't be here, but because it's santorum, there seems to be an assumption of ideological motivations. Can a link be a BLP violation, when the article is not?^[Macwhiz]

• [Dan Savage related articles are not] a walled garden... they all have many incoming links and are all clearly reliably sourced.^JoshuaZ

• Cirt frequently produces a large number of articles of extremeley high quality about a narrow subject.^JoshuaZ Cirt is always very thorough in developing content in swaths related to whatever topic he is researching at the moment, and his activities seem to be well within the standard efforts for curation of Wikipedia content...^[Sadads]

• I'm sensitive to Wikipedia's press reputation,but it should not drive our policy decisions; that would be a reaction expected of a political, not academic, body.^[Macwhiz]

• Cleaning the article off the map doesn't solve anything. If anything it looks like coverup or censorship.^[Sadads]

• [We] think there are other underlying reason for the escalation of the articles issues: users with vendettas against Cirt are forum shopping. The same group of editors have taken this controversy as an opportunity for forum shopping for the same issues, many of them in bad faith, at Jimbo's talk page, the various templates Cirt has created, ANI, AN, BLP noticeboard, Cirt's talk page, Wikipedia-en, even Did you know's talk (and now apparently ARBCOM requests about content issues [7]...). We have a concentrated group of editors that show up in opposition to Cirt's content in almost all of the conversations and connecting them, no matter what the position and what the consensus of other editors is (as far as [We] can tell, Jayan466, SlimVirgin and Off2riorob [and Coren...] are the most prominent). This has created a very large pool of people being drawn into discussions from all over the place, and finding their way to other areas and making decisions based on gut political opinions, misrepresentation of policies to meet certain ends and in defence against bad faith accusations (and these same gut opinions have led to edit warring). Recently, the conversations have all become focused on the talk page for Santorum (neologism), but some of the embers are still burning on some of the side arguments.^[Sadads]

• I think there are some people who genuinely believe BLP should be about censorship, and that any negatives whatsoever must be avoided by Wikipedia. However, BLP basically means "cover it sanely and safely", not "don't cover it at all". It says as much itself: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." [We] cannot find any evidence that the content of [Santorum (neologism)] is either unverifiable, non-neutral or original research, even though the entire subject offends some people's sensibilities.^{[Orderinchaos]}

• This article [is a very rare instance in which we see] the Senator's own response to [the neologism] - something which presented him in a significantly more mature light than the comments which sparked this off.^{[Orderinchaos]}

• If writing neutral, well-sourced articles becomes a cause for punishment then we might as well shut down this website.^{[Will Beback]} If we are to use BLP to cover up this article or bend it to the will of some 3rd string candidate we can just shutter the place right now as we are no longer an encyclopedia. Either we allow sourced and vigorously edited content within the confines of our policy or we give it up. ^[Protonk]

• A year ago there was an AFD for a different politically oriented neologism that was coined to denigrate a living person, The Gore Effect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. Several of the editors who have posted here or elsewhere with strong condemnations of the "santorum" article took the opposite position on the "Gore Effect" article. Since BLP has not changed significantly it appears that some of the difference can be attributed to the political, scientific, or cultural biases of editors.^{[Will Beback]}

• Cirt has a standing interest in editing articles related to cults or new religious movements, including Scientology,[8] Rajneesh/Osho,[9] Twelve Tribes communities,[10], est,[11] etc. Several of the editors who have commented here have also edited those articles but from the opposite POV. There may some axe-grinding going on.^{[Will Beback]}

• There is another activism, another conspiracy, which doesn't seem to be receiving due discussion. Namely, we saw the campaign to stamp out this article, or greatly reduce it, or suppress all mention of it, start just a few days before Rick Santorum's announcement of his candidacy for the American presidency. I don't believe that's a coincidence, and it suggests that one or more people on the other side here is very closely tied in with Rick Santorum's organization.^[Wnt] The nascent crush of interest in the article corresponds not with Dan Savage (who came up w/ the idea years ago) but with Rick Santorum's presidential campaign finding itself in the unenviable position of being ranked below a cruel joke played at the candidate's expense.^[Protonk]

• I agree that Wikipedia is "at risk of being abused for advocacy". But by making a strong community decision to include discussion of all reliable sources about well known politicians, we limit people to what the sources actually say. By contrast, if we allow the deletion of things people don't like, there is no bound to the distortion and whitewashing that can happen, as different groups of people try to blot things out.^[Wnt]

• I believe it is entirely wrong to criticize an editor for making "too many" edits, when those edits individually are appropriate. People should never lose rights because they registered for an account rather than contributing as a variable IP address. The decision of which articles to work on and what sources to look up and summarize is one of the few legitimate ways Wikipedians have to express their bias, and it underlies nearly every edit made to the encyclopedia. Scientists create articles about their favorite species and tools and concepts; nationalists write articles about their state parks and famous forefathers. And political supporters write the truth - when we're lucky - about their candidates and opponents.^[Wnt]

• In the straw poll on Talk:Santorum, nearly every Support vote mentioning Google considered the effect of having the article name and content on the Google results, while nearly every Oppose vote mentioning it was either unconcerned or skeptical that it had an effect. So who is using SEO?^[Wnt]

• [We] note with dismay that (Sandstein's) concerns about the new arbitration policy about to be ratified, which enables the Arbitration Committee to make binding decisions about issues of content and governance rather than only about conduct issues, seem to be well-founded. So far, three arbitrators (Jclemens, Kirill and Newyorkbrad) have voted to accept a case apparently with a view to making a policy and/or content decision, that is, to influence how Wikipedia should cover the "santorum" neologism... The only acceptable way to address such content issues is through consensus-based processes as long as these remain functional, such as the ongoing RfC... The only issue that the Arbitration Committee can legitimately address is whether there has been user misconduct in the conflicts surrounding this matter, and if yes, how it should be sanctioned... The Committee should defer to community consensus (if any emerges) about whether the current article is policy-compliant or not.^[Sandstein]

• Savage's "santorum" campaign has been discussed as a problem for his presidential campaign in ABC News,[12], Mother Jones[13], Rachel Maddow,[14] The Concord Monitor [15], CNN [16], Slate.com [17] [18], The Washington Post [19], The Village Voice [20], the Capitol Hill paper Roll Call [21], and CBS News [22] (the writer for which describes the Google Bomb as the primary reason Santorum's campaign is "widely considered a joke"). It's also been extensively referenced in the monologues of television hosts, the popular US humor programs The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and dozens of blogs. It's clear that the genie is out of the bottle, with or without Wikipedia. I think there's room to reasonably disagree about how this content should be titled, framed, and balanced, as with any article. But I'm alarmed at the repeated suggestions that ArbCom should preempt or overrule an RfC to erase this content outright, or disguise the increasingly famous fact that Dan Savage coined a nasty neologism that's blocking a well-known ex-senator's presidential ambitions. Suppressing some or all coverage of a political candidate's widely-reported problems--no matter how sympathetic we may be to those problems--seems like a precedent that will cause problems in many future articles.^[Khazar]

• Is what is written verifiable? Are the sources reliable? Is it NPOV? If not we have places to address that. If it is than move on. We do not need policies to "protect" people who say what they shouldn't have.^[Jmh649]

• Why propagate the Streisand effect?^[Jmh649]

The remainder of the comments from the Arbcom page have not yet been summarized and are quoted below.

Defense of User:Cirt unrelated to these principles

Statement by Cirt

Personal life issues

• One close family member had major surgery in the hospital in the last week.
• A 2nd close family member then also had to have urgent major surgery in the hospital, also last week.
• I am helping both with recovery at this time, and helping other family members deal with that.
• As you can imagine, this is an incredibly difficult time for my family.
• As of one week ago I had removed myself from any further edits and (still ongoing) discussions regarding "Santorum (neologism)", the WP:RFC and its associated WP:Dispute resolution processes, which are still ongoing with 100 other editors participating.
• I respectfully request the Arbitration Committee not to have me as a party to this case.

Summary of my disengagement from "Santorum (neologism)" and from DYK submissions

1. My last comment to the talk page of the "Santorum (neologism)" article was on 4 June 2011, to say that I will not be editing it or watching it anymore: diff.
2. I also have stopped watching templates {{Sexual slang}} and {{Political neologisms}}.
3. I changed my comment at a deletion discussion for the latter template, requesting it be deleted diff.
4. I commented on the now deleted template's talk page, requesting the term in question be removed from the template diff, I then actually did remove it myself diff.
5. I removed all of my DYK self noms from consideration at DYK diff
6. I stated that I will no longer be watching or nominating to DYK in the future diff
7. I requested that another nom already in the DYK queue be removed from consideration diff
8. I removed my DYK self noms a 2nd time diff
9. I posted to WT:DYK, requesting that all of my DYK self noms that I had just removed, not be considered as candidates, diff
10. The "Santorum (neologism)" issue is currently still undergoing the WP:RFC part of the WP:Dispute resolution process. Over 100 editors have contributed to it (Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content). There have been over one thousand edits to the talk page at Talk:Santorum (neologism) since I last edited it, when I said I was no longer going to be contributing to that page — here is a diff of all that has gone on at the article's talk page since I stopped contributing to it over a week ago diff.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom please see statement by Coren

• ArbCom, please see this statement by Coren diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been watching this case with interest, and came here because I saw Coren's note at Talk:Santorum (neologism), but my only involvement has been to offer an opinion in response to the RfC at that talk page.

I would encourage the Committee to either decline the case, or accept it only as some sort of way of formulating general principles about BLP, without using it to enforce any sanctions for conduct, or worse, preemptively deciding a content issue. Actually, I agree with pretty much everything that JoshuaZ, Cirt, and Macwhiz already said. Cirt has disengaged from the issue sufficiently that there is nothing to prevent by making him a party. If the Committee decides that the community has been incompetent to decide the content issues at the "neologism" page and that community consensus must be overruled to reflect the Committee's view of BLP, the community will likely come to lose trust in the Committee, and the consequences will be a fiasco. If there is a constructive role for the Committee to assume, it might be to define unresolved issues surrounding the question of how Wikipedia should deal with outside campaigns to subvert BLP policy, and then instruct the community to develop revisions to WP:BLP to close those loopholes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: I would imagine that it would make little difference whether a user were new or experienced when they have explicitly disengaged from the editing area. Yes, search engine optimization is definitely a big part of the discussion of the topic, but I'm not aware of any evidence that editors are trying to make it happen, only that it is a part of what Dan Savage and those who agree with him have done. There has also been discussion speculating that persons associated with Santorum's campaign might be editing for his advantage. Objectively, insignificantly few of the RfC respondents have been new users or single-purpose accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Thanks, agreed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

Disclaimer: I've done a bit of work on-wiki with Cirt, and I've formed the view that he's a valuable member of the community and contributes in good faith. Please discount my comments if you believe this represents significant CoI.

I've carefully considered the comments of all editors above. I agree with those who are saying that this matter seems to be essentially one of content rather than behaviour, and that the RFAR might be premature. (Heavily content-based RFARs usually don't solve the underlying problem.) There also appear to be the makings of endless "he said this, he said that" accusations if this went to a formal case. Would that be productive?

I see no compelling evidence that Cirt has actually behaved in bad faith, although some of his actions in the past might have been better handled. He has certainly backed off in a big way now, and that indicates a willingness to disengage: I don't see this as temporary or disingenuous. Someone mentioned 500 edits he's made in the past day or two. I've checked his contribs list, and it seems to be largely auto-edits, including on Commons, and the closing of AfDs. Nothing suspicious.

I wasn't acquainted with the article(s) concerned, and really, it all seems too stupid. I'm particularly keen to avoid a scatological case, which would be a gift to Fox news and other bad-faith external media; they love to take things out of context to make the WMF look bad – that is why some things are routinely dealt with out of the public eye, and a good thing, too. It's not that we should allow such a consideration to dictate how we deal with things, but in this case, it looks like we don't need to air our dirty laundry in public. Thanks. Tony (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[Jclemens Arb]

• • @Tryptofish, your point regarding sanctions is well taken. If the committee must act to fine-tune boundaries where good faith editors differ (rather than our usual role of conduct evaluation), then the appropriateness of sanctions is considerably less. While it's certainly possible something sanctionable would arise in evidence, I can certainly see such a case ending with no particular sanctions for prior conduct applied. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsure how to categorize

Statement by BeCritical

This may make it to ArbCom at some point, but I don't see why it would be now. We are in the midst of an RfC, and further discussions which have the potential for resolving the issue under Wikipedia rules. The reason this may eventually be a matter for ArbCom is that there is a basic disagreement of what is appropriate under Wikipedia rules: when we have RS, can we write a neutral separate article based on those sources with as much text as warranted by the sources? Or do we have to consider outside effects such as Google ranking and harm, or WEIGHT relative to other articles? But this is not the right time to bring this to ArbCom. Wait a couple of weeks and see what we can accomplish. We need time to make the article as close as it can come to being appropriate for WP. At that time, if there are still issues, we should bring it to ArbCom. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie. You say "I have strong feelings that the article in question is inherently problematic with our BLP policies." This is the position of a lot of people, including Jimbo. I tried to find justification for eliminating this information under Wikipedia rules... and I failed. I've considered each of the arguments presented on the talk page. If this ever gets accepted at Arbitration, what the Committee needs to decide is if there is any justification under Wikipedia rules which would disallow an article like the one in question. I believe interpretation of existing policy is within your remit? If you can't find such justification, then perhaps you will refer it back to the community to develop policy that applies to such cases. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Avanu

We have reliable sources that say this is a continuing campaign to place the term in wide usage. We have reliable sources that indicate the term's presence in Wikipedia is seen as evidence of widespread usage. "There's even an entry in Wikipedia." We have sources that say the neologism is also defined as "shorthand for 'social conservative'". Besides the obvious BLP concerns, we have evidence that shows this is an intention coining rather than an organic development of language, and as such the question becomes, do we cover the phenomenon and event, or do we cover it as a word?

It seems that by covering it as an event, rather than as a word as it is now, we avoid much of the contention that has been in play since this was added to Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Casliber -Respectfully, the main thrust of the case is presentation of content, rather than content itself. We deal with a similar concern when we evaluate WP:DUE. My belief is that most people will be satisfied if they can reasonably believe Wikipedia is not being gamed or used by outside parties to hide information *or* to manipulate coverage. If we can address that, then the actual content will be able to work itself out without a problem. -- Avanu (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Prior question by FT2

@Coren - the original case statement describes "RFCs" (plural) as well as templates, and assertions of edit wars and other improper conduct. There is little evidence given of current disorderly behavior and the presented evidence tends to show significant reasonable discussion rather than failed dispute resolution. Can we have a summary and links to the key case history rather than allusions to it, then it will be possible to comment in an informed manner. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[Other arbs] opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/2/2)

• Accept This is an intriguing question: Does Wikipedia bow to or turn a blind eye to external manipulation of reliable sources by partisans in order to meet our inclusion guidelines? Does the fact that the target is a living person make a difference? Does the fact that this particular living person is a controversial politician make a difference? While I agree that this is a content dispute, the fact that it involves BLP in a grey area means it is appropriate for the committee to set how we are to implement the foundation's directives on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Awaiting further statements; I am aware of some of the issues that have arisen related to this matter, but do not consider myself fully informed. One of the questions I ask myself in differentiating content-only vs conduct disputes is "If this same edit/series of edits was made by an unregistered or newly registered account, is it likely that community sanctions would have been applied or at least discussed?" Perhaps those making statements may wish to address this point. SEO techniques are potentially harmful to this project regardless of whether they are applied by a new editor or a longterm editor; I'd also like to hear from those making statements as to whether or not this is an issue in this matter. Risker (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have strong feelings that the article in question is inherently problematic with our BLP policies. I understand that thanks to the campaign and the politician's own actions, it's widely spread. However, that does not release it from our own policies. It is my opinion (and my opinion only), that in the balance of things, the encyclopedia would be better off without this article. Wikipedia should not be used as a revenge platform. But that is only my opinion, and I don't think anyone wants ArbCom to rule on the content here, just the conduct. I'd like a bit more discussion if a RFC can at least ameliorate the worst of this issue, or if this has to be handled here and now. SirFozzie (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting additional statements or developments; I have limited wikitime right now but will vote in a day or two; leaning toward acceptance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Accept. The Committee should provide guidance on the important BLP and related user-conduct issues raised by this case. I know that other dispute-resolution processes are being used; if they lead to a consensus outcome that would make this case moot, I am open to changing my vote, but that strikes me as unlikely. If accepted, the case should be relatively straightforward and we might consider putting it on an expedited timetable (one week from the opening for evidence). Without prejudging the case in any way, I agree with Jclemens that a decision need not include sanctions against specific editors to be useful in providing guidance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Decline. pending RfC. Main thrust of case is content. Await more broad-based community input and urge editors to make their opinion known. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse per User:Jayvdb/recusal#WS and I've also been involved in this. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse; obviously. — Coren ^(talk) 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Provisionally accept, very grudgingly. I dislike the idea of Arbcom dictating policy by fiat, but I think this may be necessary; the dispute shows no sign of reaching a compromise. Per the Ireland article names precedent, "The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision." This shows all the signs of being one of these cases. As with the similar case on hyphens, if those involved can come up with a process which generates a result which most of those involved can live with (be it a full-scale RFC, a formal vote or a coin-flip by which all parties agree to abide, the process isn't as important as the fact that all those significantly involved agree to abide by it), I'd be extremely happy to have Arbcom step aside completely (or sign off on the community-generated result, if people feel it would be helpful to bring said result into the scope of arbitration enforcement). This situation will occur more and more often, as people wake up to the fact that manipulating the nature of the sources that fuel Wikipedia is a way to subvert Wikipedia's neutrality as regards a topic; one way or another, at some point we need to formulate how we deal with these situations when they arise. – iridescent 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Opposition statements

Statement by Coren

We have, I think, a novel problem.

Wikipedia is being willfully used as a weapon for political activism against a specific person: there is a concerted effort to manipulate and misuse our policies into giving exposition to a political campaign against an American politician.

There is a campaign by Dan Savage to associate the name of former US Senator Rick Santorum with an unpleasant scatological and sexual meaning. That campaign, and the word "santorum", have indeed received sufficient press coverage that an article on the attack is most certainly justified (albeit the dispute has spread to the naming of that article) to give heightened prominence to "santorum" as an insult.

The problem is that many recent editorial acts made by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and a number of supporters have obviously been designed to support the campaign to attack the reputation of a living person by promoting the use of the pejorative. By promoting Savage himself, adding the attack word to a number of templates in order to increase its visibility [23][24][25] all over the course of six days. Add to that the large number of attempts to promote that walled garden to the Main page (GA submission, numerous DYK hooks), and it's self-evident that the objective is the attack on Santorum.

The latter misuse of templates to promote a BLP violation by pretending that the attack is part of genuine sexual slang in any community in particular is so egregious and vicious that I intervened personally to remove it. I was immediately edit warred over the removal and things would have likely escalated without DeltaQuad's protection of both surviving templates.

I'm looking for the Committee here to intervene and declare clearly that BLP overrides local consensus on those templates before protection runs out and things go boom again. Wikipedia must not be allowed to become a weapon in the hands of political activists, no matter how savvy they are about our rules.

As a disclosure: I did not know of Santorum's existence before that particular dispute broke out here. I am not an Amercian, but my political leanings would place me as far away from Santorum's politics as possible, if I were.

No opposition to Cirt not being officially involved

While I believe that Cirt has been the precipitating editor, I've no objection, of course, to his not being a specifically named party given his family situation.

Besides, I believe that the issue can be decided without any particular editor being named given that it is mostly about policy interpretation than behavioral issues.

On good faith

There have been a number of comments saying that I need to "assume good faith" regarding this. I'm a little confused by those comments: I'm not sure how assumption either way change the actual effect of promoting "santorum" as though it was a real world is a BLP violation regardless of intent.

The fact of the matter is, one template was edited and two templates created for the sole purpose of having Santorum (neologism) linked from as many articles as possible. That is the BLP violation regardless of whether it was done with the intent to harm Rick Santorum or borne out of a genuine (if misguided) belief that this "neologism" needs to be documented on as many pages as possible. (As opposed to documenting the campaign itself which some people below confuse the issue with).

About timing

Not being aware of American politics, I decided to examine the situation as viewed outside Wikipedia to see how relevant this whole kerfuffle is when not wearing our project glasses. I was more than a little surprised to note that Santorum has made official his intent to run for the US Presidency this very month(!) (And, a quick news search shows, that was rumored to be the case since, roughly, the beginning of may).

I'm all for assuming copious amounts of impeccable good faith by all involved, but am I the only one who is more than a little stunned that this whole mess gets imported to Wikipedia at that very time when the actual original controversy dates from 2003? I'm sorry, but I'm not naive enough to believe this is a coincidence.

@Avanu

Yes, exactly. Personally, I have absolutely nothing against the presence of a good article discussing the entire campaign; a better name would assuage my concerns, but it's not a dealbreaker.

What I do object to is pretending that "santorum" is a real part of sexual slang or a true neologism. It is not. I remain convinced that trying to link it around templates or using it in articles has the effect of not only agreeing with Savage's campaign but of actively participating in it. I don't particularly care if supporters are doing this because they want to increase the attack's circulation or out of a genuine concern for "truth" against "censorship". The effect remains that Wikipedia then becomes a tool in a political advocacy campaign and that cannot be allowed.

@macwhiz

"Can a link be a BLP violation, when the article is not?" Yes, and so can placing an otherwise okay article in a category, for instance. Placing Jimmy Wales in Category:Serial killers would be a clear BLP violation, for instance, so would linking some random instance of "idiot" to Barack Obama.

The point is, placing "santorum" in lists of actual sexual slang lends unsupported credence to the campaign by taking its objective as a given. It isn't documenting a new piece of slang in genuine use, it's attempting to create one as a means to attack a living person.

Statement by Anthonyhcole

I've been discussing this topic on Talk:Santorum (neologism) for about a week. An article has been written about a notable prank: a columnist's campaign for the adoption of a neologism, defining a politician's unusual name as a mixture of shit and lubricant. The article has been wrongly named after the failed neologism rather than after the campaign, which is clearly the topic. This gives the false impression that the neologism is notable of itself. According to the article's only serious source on the question of the term's (as opposed to the campaign's) notability, a dictionary of slang and unconventional English, whose editors declined to include the word in its alphabetical listing:

"In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage."

The article is very poorly written, mostly a litany of press mentions of the campaign, saying nothing of consequence (but "proving" over and over again that the campaign is notable) and OR attempting to controvert the reliable source's appraisal of the term's degree of acceptance and usage. It can be cut down to a tenth of its current size without losing one relevant, reliably sourced fact. This opens the question, Does it deserve its own article if that's all that's relevant that can be reliably asserted about this campaign?

The current RfC on the talk page proposes that this topic article be renamed, then merged into an existing article about the politician's position on homosexuality. There is considerable support for renaming (another editor has counted it as around 50:50, and a lot of the RfC "no" votes didn't declare a position on renaming without merging) but less for the merge. The false impression of notability that Wikipedia is presently giving to this term ("The term ... has a Wikipedia entry as thoroughly researched as the one about the former senator himself") is harming the encyclopedia and abetting a political campaign. I think the community should consider very carefully whether it is appropriate to wait another month or so, while we all chew it over on the article's talk page, to correct the obvious misnaming of this article.

Santorum (neologism) does not belong in the "Sexual slang" template because it does not warrant an article. The template problem will be resolved when the root problem is resolved. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2011. Updated 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that progress is being made in the generally respectful and collegial discussions. I would far prefer that the community deal with this on the article's talk page. My concern is that it be dealt with promptly. I don't see the present RfC passing, but believe another on renaming might. So, I'd like to see the current one wound up, and another begun on renaming as soon as good manners permits. When the naming issue is resolved, so will many others be, including the template question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2011

Statement by Jayen466

This is part of an ongoing and very troubling pattern of political activism on the part of Cirt, spanning several Wikimedia projects and including the use of the Wikipedia main page for activism. I posted my concerns to his talk page a couple of weeks ago, and SlimVirgin echoed those concerns in a post of her own to his talk page a few days later. I repeat the salient points here.

It's a longstanding issue, concerning one of the project's most prolific editors, that deserves the Committee's attention. Given that Cirt has stepped back from editing the Santorum article, there is no hurry in addressing it. However, it is vital to this project's integrity that it be addressed. Cirt should be given time to take care of his family commitments, and the case opened once the crisis is over.

Note though that Cirt has made more than 500 edits to Wikipedia over the past 96 hours. There is an apparent mismatch between words and actions. --JN466 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: SEO is an issue, as the template creations, as described here, added about 300 in-bound links to the article. The political neologism template was deleted after long discussions at WP:TFD and on the deleted template's talk page (in which a majority of editors agreed that "santorum" was not a political neologism at any rate, comparable to terms like "Euroskepticism" and "Adopt a Highway"). The LGBT slang and sexual slang templates actually have a fair amount of shared content, raising redundancy issues. As for the comparison between new users and established admins, there is a difference in scale and duration. New users often arrive naively; they may make tendentious edits, unsourced edits, BLP violations, etc. – that is completely normal. If they stick around, they eventually learn not to make them. New users typically make few edits; they don't have any idea how DYK works, how to get an article on the main page, and how to create templates. The situation is very different with an established administrator, who knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia and its sister projects as well as anyone, and regularly makes more than 100 edits a day. If such an editor persists in committing BLP and NPOV violations, over a period of years, and has the clout to get non-neutral campaign material onto the main page, this is a totally different kind of threat to the integrity of this project than a newbie making poor edits. For one, it cannot be put down to unfamiliarity with site policies, but rather reflects a wilful and skilful intent to flout or game them, always pushing the envelope as far as possible as long as there is no substantial challenge, and then quickly backing down when it becomes clear that the waters are getting too hot. That is what we are dealing with here. --JN466 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(Clerk note) I have removed a substantial amount of content from this section, per the restrictions on statement length. AGK [•] 11:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Diff --JN466 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Coren: Yes, the timing is crucial here. AGF is not a suicide pact. AGF would imply that Cirt's interest in the Jose Peralta, Joel Anderson, Kenneth Dickson and Hiram Monserrate articles, and their Wikipedia main page appearances close to election day, were also coincidental.

• Cirt added Jose Peralta, with glowing endorsements of Peralta, to the Wikiquote main page on March 10, just in time for the New York State Senate election on March 16. It stayed there the entire week.
• Presently, Cirt has three pages on Werner Erhard, another pet subject, featured on the Wikiquote main page.

The assumption of good-faith, accidental interest in these articles is emphatically contradicted by Xenubarb's comment that she "helped Cirt" with "the Jeff Stone/campaign articles" for Wikipedia.

Please, people, open your eyes. Our processes are being ruthlessly gamed here, and our main pages put in the service of one editor's political and social agenda. --JN466 02:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Tony: I simply see no slow-down in Cirt's editing rate over the past few days, prior to this request by Coren. His last 500 edits occurred over the period 12–8 June. The preceding 500-edit time periods are: 8–4 June, 4–3 June, 3 June – 31 May, 31–27 May, 27–25 May, 25–20 May, 20–15 May, 15–11 May, 11–7 May. I see that Cirt has an article at FAC, and has responded promptly to reviewers since nominating it on June 6. Any family matters have not prevented Cirt from nominating an article for FA, shepherding it through FAC, and editing at the same rate as in May. There is no question that Cirt does a ton of useful work. That does not mean we should close our eyes to the problems that come along with it. Cirt's expansion and promotion of the santorum article created one of the biggest disruptions this project has encountered in a good while. --JN466 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by pretty much uninvolved Fetchcomms

The only involvement I have had is editing Talk:Santorum (neologism) a few times (one or two?). I don't care for either Santorum or Savage, frankly.

Easy solution: delete Santorum (neologism) and be done with it.

Hard question: Is Savage funding the (creation of, continued existence of, and drama caused by) Santorum (neologism) article?

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case and beat some sense into the involved parties. This cannot be a big enough deal to prompt admins to go nuts and start edit warring—unless there are some external motivations involved.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvovled Griswaldo

This case needs to be accepted because Wikipedia has been seriously gamed here for political purposes. Personally I would love to see Rick Santorum's political career end, but I find it completely inappropriate for Wikipedia to be a pawn in any efforts to do so. "Santorum" is not a neologism of note because it is simply not used by anyone other than the political activists who are working hard to keep it at the top of Google search results. Is the Google bombing effort itself notable? Perhaps, but in that case we need to cover it responsibly in a manner that does not aid it. This issue needs attention because we need to send a message to other activists that Wikipedia's reputation will not be sacrificed for their gain.Griswaldo (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Off2riorob

I think there is a case worthy of Arbitration here specifically in relation to User:Cirt's editing patterns. In this case User:Cirt has created a large amount of work that appears clearly designed to affect the real world in support of an external partisan campaign and not to simply report it in a neutral balanced manner. User Jayen466 has outlined clearly in his extended content section above other similar situations at multiple articles. This is not a content dispute it is an established editors usage of the project as a kind of campaigning tool and the User:Cirt is experienced in how to do it. The use of the wikipedia main page to further the campaign is detrimental to the projects integrity and NPOV reputation. The situation is made all the worse by the fact that the user is so experienced in comparison to the partisan additions of passing unconfirmed contributors which are quickly and easily removed. It is because of the partisan nature of these contributions of User Cirt that they are so divisive and disruptive to the community. Its a repeat problem and the community would benefit from Arbcom investigation of this case Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

There is at least one possible gorilla in the room here that should be asked about. Is Wikipedia being used by activists to promote a campaign against a political figure? If the answer to this question is possibly "yes", then it behooves ArbCom to get involved and put a stop to it. The community can't stop it by RfC's and the like, because the activists involved canvass each other by email and/or Facebook to go vote in the RfC's, AfDs, etc., and prevent the correct consensus from developing. C'mon ArbCom, show some leadership. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Alanyst

The committee should pass a motion aimed at providing guidance for resolving this dispute. The motion should state:

1. WP:BLP is applicable to the article. (Some participants in the discussion reject this premise, and it is in the remit of Arbcom to determine which policies apply to a particular case.)
2. To the extent that Wikipedia covers the subject, it must not explicitly associate a living person's name with a scatological substance, since doing so perpetuates the harm intended by the person who promoted the term.

The second point follows directly from BLP as applied to the facts of the case. The internet columnist sought to harm an ideological opponent by crafting and promoting a slang term that associates the opponent's surname with a scatological substance. To promulgate that association directly is to participate in the ongoing harm of the target and others who share the surname. Without dictating how the content is to be altered to satisfy the second point, the committee can draw the appropriate boundary that will ensure satisfaction of the BLP policy. Personally, I would suggest that the article simply state that the neologism has a scatological meaning, without explicitly defining it further in the article text. The curious reader can follow the references to find the explicit definition if they wish. But this is one of possibly several viable solutions that might satisfy the motion, and the community can collectively find the best one so long as they know which lines should not be crossed. alanyst 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ResidentAnthropologist

There are two elements from my perspective we need to address here:

• Wikipedia is being willfully used as a weapon for political activism against a specific person: there is a concerted effort to manipulate and misuse our policies into giving exposition to a political campaign against an American politician.

• Cirt's continued behavior of using Wikipedia (but also Wikimedia sites in general) as a platform for online Activism against and for individuals and organizations.

Cirt has shown a years long campaign of activism against Scientology on Wikipedia, creating a multitude of articles that though neutrally written clearly intended to demonize Scientology. To me this Santorum issue is no different but rather an extension of preexisting editing patterns within Cirt's editing. Cirt to my knowledge has never actually deliberately broken the letter of policy, but Cirt has always danced the line of the spirit of our policies. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Flatterworld

User:Risker asked about using SEO techniques. I would say yes, that was a major part of the 'attack' (both outside and inside of Wikipedia) as opposed to any sort of grassroots development of the word - which is why it appears to be 100% 'astroturf'. Savage even created a website specifically designed to 'spread' the use of the word. (And note that most new words are created in an attempt to describe something which is actually new.)

Using Google advanced search, I found 278 links to Savage's website for the 'word'. 32 links directly to Santorum (neologism). 63 links to Rick Santorum. 3 links to Santorum. There are about 110 about to Template:Sexual slang and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:LGBT_slang&limit=50 about 65 links to Template:LGBT slang. Both external and internal links affect search engine results. It's very likely the near-constant updating of the two Wikipedia pages also moves up their 'popularity' and 'relevance' rankings.

As for which article our readers are trying to view, you can check the page view statistics for Rick Santorum, Santorum (neologism), Santorum, and Santorum disambiguation). (Until recently 'Santorum' was a disambiguation page rather than redirecting to Rick Santorum, although I believe that's gone back and forth somewhat.)

Perhaps the article should be renamed Dan Savage's SEO attack. Or anything else which does NOT include the word in question in the title. It really has more to do with Savage than with Rick Santorum. Flatterworld (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You can see the results for yourself by googling 'Santorum' (Savage's website, Wikipedia Santorum (neologism), Wikipedia Rick Santorum, followed by Google's 'news' section) and more surprisingly 'Rick Santorum' (Savage's website, Wikipedia Rick Santorum, Wikipedia Santorum (neologism), followed by Google's 'news' section).

This is not the only time political articles have been trying to use SEO techniques. For example, the insistence and oddball 'reasons') that one candidate for office 'deserves' his/her own article and someone else does not. The SERPs are very different, even if one name is set up to redirect to the election article. We need to be fair ad keep the playing field flat and level. imo.

Hope these numbers and links save you some time as you review the situation. Flatterworld (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Wnt's comments, I would suggest most people were unaware of this until Rick Santorum was in the news. That's generally when people start googling for someone's name, in an effort to learn more about that person. The results are usually relevant. When they aren't, people are surprised, and want to know why. That doesn't make it some conspiracy. Flatterworld (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

This is not just a simple content dispute. The source of the matter here was a journalist who disliked a politician, and attempted to coin a sexual word using said politician's last name in hopes of getting it to the top of the search engines. The word itself does not exist; not as a neologism, a sexual slang, or even a meme. To attempt to have an article on the word itself, or to try to include it into templates of slang, is ridiculous, and does nothing but perpetuate the original google-bomb.

What needs to be decided here is if the Wikipedia is going to allow itself to be manipulated in this fashion for political gain, and what to do with editors who clearly violate WP:BLP policy to carry out personal ideological battles.

I would also note that this case is largely useless without Cirt's involvement, as this mess is largely the creation of this editor. Tarc (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

Responding to SirFozzie's comment, I view this as a content dispute, and I specifically would like ArbCom to rule on the content issue. There are some content issues that only ArbCom can decide, BLP questions in particular -- almost every Wikipedia procedure outside ArbCom requires consensus, but BLP policy is not a matter of consensus. A BLP violation is a BLP violation reqardless of whether a significant fraction of the community are in favor of it. I have not been following all the back-and-forth play here, but I do not see punishment of individual editors as what is needed -- what is needed is for this article to go away, at least in anything resembling its current form. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

I encourage the committee to either take the case or to levy some stringent injunctions regarding this topic. I note that last week I got irritated enough to start liberally trouting any editor who tried to get a content ruling on this article (moving, renaming, deleting, screaming abuse, etc.) on any noticeboard they thought their viewpoint could get a good showing. This article is the locus of drama across many discussion threads and has gotten to the point that I stop participating in any discussion about it. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[Kirill Lokshin Arb]

• Accept, primarily per Avanu. This appears to be a case where the coverage of a topic in Wikipedia has in and of itself become a substantive aspect of the wider, off-wiki dispute about the topic; and thus one where Wikipedia is at risk of being misused as a platform for advocacy even if said coverage appears, at first glance, to comply with NPOV. I note that the closest precedent we have for such a scenario (Regarding The Bogdanov Affair) is ancient in Wikipedia terms, and must be updated to reflect both more recent policy developments and Wikipedia's increased prominence. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)