Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cirt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alleged cavassing

I do not consider this to be canvassing, and in any case, it's had no immediate effect, as I responded to put off the work. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Outside view by Gamaliel

I agree that it looks like some of the charges are just throwing everything at him to see if something sticks. But there are also some legitimate charges in there as well. This RFC seems to be treating Cirt like OJ Simpson--like the police then, we're trying to frame someone who's guilty anyway. It's bad for the police to use bogus evidence, but ultimately, OJ did do the deed he was accused of. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel's comment seems to ridicule Jayen's evidence without any substantive analysis (which is rather ironic). I'd also like to add that Prioryman's claim about wikihounding is an exaggeration. I commented at the linked to discussion and Jayen was not "heavily criticized." Indeed the thread went nowhere and people suggested RFC/U as the appropriate courses of action if either editor had complaints about the other. On that point, the arbs also suggested RFC/U when they declined the RFAr that Coren started about Cirt and the Santorum issue. I don't see how posting notice to each arbitrator about the RFC/U individually (as opposed to on a much more public noticeboard) amounts to "canvassing." People should look at all the evidence and decide for themselves what may or may not have merit. Many will undoubtedly find, as Ken has, that even if some of it seems overly ambitious there are very clearly troubling bits in there as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's a legitimate charge in there I'd like to know what it is. It would save us all so much time. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For example, (1) biasing Wikimedia pre-election content relating to two US elections in favour of the candidates preferred by Anonymous, involving both the Wikipedia and Wikiquote main pages. (2) Multiple violations of WP:BLPSPS. --JN466 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Because you're planning to take my word for it? Cirt's involvement with political articles during elections is very troubling. I think his other promotional writing, like the Daryl Wine Bar article is also troubling, but less so because BLP issues are invovled with the political stuff not to mention gaming the encyclopedia to advance real life political interests. Those who have commented that Cirt has puffed up articles for both Democrats and Republicans fail to acknowledge that his interests in these matters clearly don't fall in line with party politics. The pattern her is clear by the way. Cirt has not only puffed these articles up when it mattered (ongoing elections or recent announcements of running for office), but he's worked as hard as he could to get maximum exposure through things like DYK. When someone engages in this kind of puffery they edit against WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. One of the additional aspects of all this that Jayen has not even mentioned is that Cirt's puffery has caused a serious amount of disruption in multiple venues related to the good faith efforts of others to curtail his politicking. It took 2 AfDs to delete both the Dickson and Daryl Wine Bar articles (articles that very clearly never belonged in the encyclopedia). During the process Cirt dragged editors to AN/I and otherwise contributed to a very unproductive atmosphere in order to defend his work. That was what bothered me most. That people who are just trying to do their job and keep the encyclopedia filled with good quality encyclopedic content all of a sudden had to suffer harassment at AN/I and all kinds of accusations of incivility, hounding, etc. because they didn't have the social capital he had. Yet they were right all along. That's not something we need around here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that is your view, why don't you draw up an Outside view? I'll sign up to that. :) The RfC/U is already a lot to read; there are lots of other issues in a similar vein that could have been added. Some of the ones you mention are touched upon in the AN/I threads linked towards the bottom, in the Canvassing section, i.e.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Philip_Baird_Shearer_-_block_review
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Behaviour_of_admin_Cirt_in_content_disputes
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt--JN466 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While I personally have the opinion that OJ did it, if I were on that jury I could not have convicted him... because the police were so busy trying to frame him, badly, that they introduced far too much reasonable doubt. It's deeply troubling to hear someone say "we're trying to frame someone who's guilty anyway". Look closely at that statement: It admits that one is providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime, but justifies it by assuming the role of judge and jury, declaring guilt without evidence or due process. The statement is, in short, vigilantism, and I don't see how such is compatible with Wikipedia's Pillars. It sure isn't WP:PROVEIT. Besides, comparing Cirt's editing with the brutal stabbing death of two people...? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify framing anyone, I'm saying that yes, I agree with Gamaliel that many of the charges against Cirt are absurd and are an attempt to get him in any way we can--the one about the two recipes probably being the worst--but there do seem to be some genuinely bad things in there as well. We *are* trying to frame a guilty person, and it's *not* good that we're doing that. Bring up things that he has actually done and stop making things up. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we're in agreement there, then! My personal preference would be for this RfC/U to be closed out, and a new one opened by someone who does not have a long and antagonistic history with Cirt, addressing the specific behaviors that are troublesome, rather than trying to pillory him. It seems to me like we need more "stern intervention meeting" and less hatchet job. It'd be more productive. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree. Several people at FAC commented that they felt they were being "sold" the book. The FAC failed; if it hadn't, the article on the bacon book would one day have turned up on our main page. The article's lead says, " "The book received positive reviews, and its recipes were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004." That is making a lot of the fact that two recipes were thus included. Why not just say, "two of its recipes were included"? Yes, seen in isolation, it's trivial. If you see it a dozen times, you go Ahem. If you see it a hundred times, you get pissed off. The difference between you and me is simply that you've not seen it as often. Partridge, at santorum, was another wonderful example of twisting a source in such a way that, although what was said was strictly speaking "verifiable", it completely misrepresented that source to the reader, to support a POV in favour of that term. This from an editor who is a master at quoting out of context (Cirt: "[Gloria] Gaynor worked her way through Scientology"; source: "Gaynor worked her way though Scientology, transcendental meditation, and Buddhism [on her search for a spiritual home]" and fights tooth and nail against having that put right. But I can understand that to someone who comes to this with fresh eyes, it is not compelling. So I'm all in favour of concentrating on the more material points. Cheers, --JN466 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am completely unconvinced. Am I supposed to believe that in that text Cirt was trying to convince readers that the whole book was selected for inclusion in Best American Recipes? These seem like incredibly picayune things to pull up - especially by comparison to deletionists, for whom it's always their way or the highway, who make up a dozen bogus reasons to exclude something because they don't like it. Deletionists are all about the raw exercise of power, but for inclusionists, knowledge is the more important, and I cannot support a plan to punish an inclusionist for a few dubiously rough edges in a vast body of work. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Timing of santorum edits

• On May 9, Cirt made five edits to Santorum (neologism), primarily adding a response by Santorum that in my view substantially improved the article's NPOV. [1] Prior to this, he had not been a substantial contributor to the page for at least a year. [2]
• On May 9, at 11 p.m. EDT, Jon Stewart suggested that users search Google for the term "santorum", leading the term to become one of Google's top hits. [3][4]
• On the afternoon of May 10, Cirt began seriously editing the article. In the course of 14 hours, he made the majority of 100 edits by six users. [5] This all occurred after the term became newly newsworthy and notable thanks to Jon Stewart.

So, based on the timeline, there is a perfectly credible alternative to the "pure political motivation" theory for Cirt's edits. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page view stats bear out the link to Jon Stewart's show. On 10 May, the day after it was broadcast, views of the article went up from 1,900 on 9 May to over 149,000 on 10 May. [6] Note that Santorum didn't announce his campaign formally until 6 June. [7] Stewart's show is the only conceivable factor that could have produced that usage spike. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I'm having real trouble understanding the complaint... if something happens to make a topic suddenly far richer in reliable sources overnight, apparently what you should not do is make use of them and go digging for others that might have been missed? I guess I've been doing this Wikipedia editing thing all wrong... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the Jon Stewart show. The article Macwhiz posted, published on the day after the show, described Santorum as a "presidential hopeful". Apparently, "On Monday night's Daily Show, Stewart ran down the list of lesser-known presidential [hopefuls] and encouraged viewers to Google them." --JN466 21:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's surprising that you weren't aware of it, considering that information about it was added (not by Cirt) to the article only a few hours after it was broadcast. [8] It's still there now in an amended form under "Reception and political impact", which says: "[Stewart's] reference to it in May 2011 caused the word to be one of the most queried search terms on Google the following day". Surely you must have read the article you've been campaigning against? Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jayen, I think that's where a lot of the consternation from "the other side" at santorum came from: that Daily Show clip generated tons of press in RSes, and fed interest in the term... leading to the reinforcement of the PageRank for Savage's page (and likely ours). If Cirt hadn't done it, someone else would have: bet you'd find a history of page expansions following notable usages on Stewart or Colbert's shows. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the timing is certainly close. Cirt started editing the article on 9 May, 22:21 UTC. That's 17:21 Eastern time, and probably a few hours before Stewart's late-night show. But I agree Stewart's show covering the presidential hopefuls, and subsequent press coverage, cast a spotlight on the issue. --JN466 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is neither horseshoes nor hand grenades, though. As for the five edits Cirt made on the 9th, adding Santorum's POV to the article, I note that one of them was an article published on April 28—just 11 days earlier. This implies to me that Cirt was not exactly tending the article at the time. It is, however, consistent with an editor finding a recent source that has not yet been assimilated, and then finding other material in the process of balancing out the article. That's normal editing. Frankly, unless someone wants to present unequivocal evidence that Cirt was somehow collaborating with Dan Savage and Jon Stewart to hype the article before it made the news thanks to Stewart—which would be an absurd allegation—I think this has to be chalked up to coincidence. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That whole complaint stinks of a witch hunt. That the complainants completely ignore the very obvious explanation for why the article ballooned in size and visibility and instead, along with SlimVirgin accuse Cirt of being in cahoots with Savage is deplorable. Even assuming that they legitimately did not know about Stewart's piece at the time that they compiled their complaints, it seriously suggests they were looking for things to complain about, rather than addressing real issues. The point about YouTube videos is just as patently ridiculous. The complainants may have some legitimate points in regards to problem behaviour by Cirt, but they've poisoned their case by including such suspiciously weak claims, and I can't see this rfcu going forward as a result. Just a lesson for next time: quality over quantity. Don't throw 20 complaints into the wild and see what sticks; research each one well and only include ones that can stand up to scrutiny. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Throwaway there is no "case" here to be poisoned. An RFC is not an all or nothing proposition. The initiator has made several claims about Cirt. If there are legitimate points in there then those should be noted and dealt with. If others bring up legitimate points same goes for that. To disregard "legitimate points" because you think others are not as legitimate does a disservice to the community and to the RFC process more specifically. Please remember also that the RFC does not result in sanctions. Its very purpose is to air these kinds of claims so that others in the community can evaluate them and determine which ones might require further action if any.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the readily-checked claims are either flimsy or trumped-up, so some of the other claims that depend on deep research into article histories get discounted: why go to the work of researching the minutae when everything else seems to be (how to be civil here?) lacking the full details to present a balanced view? It begs for TL;DR. There's also claims that depend not on objective evidence, but subjective evaluation of a vast editing history. I find it hard to invest the work in trying to find evidence of bad faith on Cirt's part when the evidence of good faith on the part of some of his accusers is so tenuous. I'm not saying that I couldn't be persuaded, nor that I think Cirt is perfect; I'm just saying that so far, this RfC/U isn't persuasive. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That is why I said, at the top of the RfC/U, Users are advised that understanding the problem requires a close review of several lengthy articles. Please do not comment until you have reviewed the article versions indicated. Thank you., and repeated at three points in the RfC/U, Before reading on, please review this article version for neutrality. We cannot arrive at a serious work result when people are prepared to spend 2 hours on posting and reading drive-by comments, but are not prepared to invest two hours in going from an RfC/U from top to bottom, following the indicated links, and then writing a considered and informed opinion. You said, For example, it's implied that the Corbin Fisher article was a promotional piece. Having read the full contents of the leaked conversation between Cirt, SlimVirgin, and Shell Kinney, I did not get this impression. From reading the conversation between SlimVirgin and Cirt? SlimVirgin's stance in the leaked conversation between her and Cirt will not make sense to you unless you have read the article that the conversation was about. TL;DR is not the correct method to respond to an RfC/U. --JN466 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And what we're (or at least I am) saying is that it's pretty unreasonable to expect people to go through all of the trouble of reading every edit to an article before arriving at a decision when you don't go through the trouble of realizing the very simple reason behind the Santorum article so quickly gaining in size and popularity (sure he DYK'd it, but it would have been grossly expanded anyway), or why he would include the "Message to Scientology" video, or any of the other things that showed a lack of understanding and research on your part. When I said you've poisoned your "case", I meant it. It's damned hard to convince a large group of people that there's a problem with Cirt's behaviour when so much of your evidence is so clearly flawed. It's not just bad, it's self-evidently bad to anyone with the most cursory understanding of surrounding events. It's for that reason that I, and others, have described this as having the appearances of a witch hunt. Rather than a considered critique of Cirt's behaviour, your evidence reads as a throw-the-spaghetti-against-the-wall attempt to list as many things as possible in the hopes the community is outraged at one of them, or sufficiently encumbered by the weight of the evidence to be unable to come to any sensible conclusion. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the evidence you've presented does very little to convince me that there's a problem with Cirt's editing, and that makes me think there are ulterior motives, here. That conclusion is only buoyed by the leaked emails between Cirt and SlimVirgin. It was obvious that both of them were playing political games and scheming and trying to lure the other into saying something that could be used against them, and I have neither the time nor desire to involve myself in that bullshit. That the complaints presented here in large part mirror SV's complaints suggest that this is an extension of her politicking, and the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not going to defend Cirt, and I'm also not going to condemn him based on what is clearly an ongoing political struggle between rival groups on Wikipedia. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, what Throwaway said. You're asking me to devote hours to researching myriad issues as "background" before understanding your claims. In deciding whether I'd rather spend my time doing that or, say, productively editing the encyclopedia, I look first at the easier-to-verify claims. I don't think I'm alone in this. In this case, those claims came up short. I am not saying that none of your claims have any merit, or that I won't look into them; I'm saying that, because you chose to include some real reaches, a person could easily reach the conclusion "the easy-to-check claims have no merit, so it's unlikely that the others do" and not bother to look further. It would have been better to concentrate on one or two things and clearly lay out the timeline, with appropriate diffs. Instead, much of what the RfC/U links to is either picayune, or makes those opposing Cirt look at least as bad as what the RfC/U claims Cirt has done. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, here's an article about an earlier plug for the neologism on the Colbert Report from February 2011.[9] and here's one from a week earlier with a Google screen shot showing the Wikipedia article was already the #2 hit for "santorum".[10]   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quotation of Anonymous forum postings

The link given as evidence for the Anonymous forum: [11]

• The message Jayen selectively quoted as evidence is numbered #18.
• The message I quoted as saying Cirt is ethical is numbered #13.
• Cirt's name entered the thread in message #6, apparently from someone looking to see which editor performed a "cleanup" of David Miscavige. Interestingly, while the RfC/U seems to be trying to paint Cirt as a rabid anti-Scientologist, the folks on this anti-Scientology forum were concerned that he was making pro-Scientology edits—and perhaps even a Scientologist plant himself. The later comments #13 and #18 were by way of refuting those concerns.

Personally, I think that it speaks well of Cirt's contributions to that area if both the pro- and anti- forces are concerned that he's pushing the other side's POV. If you're pissing off both sides, you must be doing something right. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The David Miscavige edits discussed at that board, by the way, were in response to a BLPN thread: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive96#David_Miscavige. I don't think Cirt would deny that he has links with Anonymous. He has stated that he knows Xenubarb, and contacted her for assistance on the campaign articles. Gregg Housh follows Cirt on scribd (as do Jason Beghe, and Mike Godwin, for that matter :) ). Cirt has uploaded tons of Anonymous videos to Commons, and has freely admitted joining Wikinews originally with a focus of reporting on that one issue. [12] Project Chanology is his most-edited article in Wikipedia. That's all fine; but I don't think it should induce an admin to actually set out to bias Wikimedia content pre-election in such a pronounced manner, using two projects' main pages. It's not good for this project to be used as an electioneering aid. --JN466 21:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't play "guilt by association". Knowing someone, even to the extent that you could ask their assistance in obtaining a copyright signoff from someone they know, isn't the same thing as being an associate of someone. I know someone who works on the crew of CSI, but that doesn't mean I'm associated with their chronic use of invalid IP addresses. We all know someone who has done something that other people don't like, without being in any way associated with their actions. (Or worse, not even knowing someone, but being observed by someone is not proof of taint!) Scientology is a hot topic on Wikipedia, and I fear that "He's (pro-|anti-)Scientology!" is the Wikipedia equivalent of "He supports terrorism!" at this point.

Reading the BLPN thread you linked and the associated talk-page discussion, I see what looks like WP:BRD, with Cirt making a number of deletions to make Jayen and Resident Anthropolgist happy. It looks like good collegial editing to me.

Per your link, I see Cirt saying "I know I focused on a particular topic when I started out here and was learning the ropes, but I have since attempted to diversify the type of articles I write, contributing to 10 articles on other unrelated topics." I don't think this is an uncommon thing. If I look at your edit history, Jayen, I see you concentrating on a small number of articles in a narrow range of topics in your early days, too—but I would not now try to paint you as unhealthily obsessed with cars and Indian mysticism.

I am still nowhere near convinced that you have made the case that Cirt is using Wikipedia as "an electioneering aid", and by the arguments in this RfC/U, I'm left to wonder if any editing of political articles would be acceptable during political silly season under this line of argument. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Promise made by Cirt to Lar, Scott MacDonald"

The RfC/U has a section, WP:Requests for comment/Cirt#Promise made by Cirt to Lar, Scott MacDonald, which claims "Cirt... does the opposite of what he said he would do", claiming Lar and Scott MacDonald felt Cirt had not kept his promise as a justification for the claim. I find this to be an incomplete version of events.

Reading the linked discussion [13], I see that Lar did raise concerns, but appeared to accept Cirt's clarification that he had reduced, rather than eliminated, edits on Scientology-related topics. His undertaking, quoted by Scott Mac, used the terms "shift my focus away from" and "avoid", which aren't absolutes. Lar and Sadads defended Cirt against Scott in the thread. It was pointed out that the articles in question were edited primarily due to Cirt's concentration on freedom of speech–related articles at the time, and were tangentially related to Scientology. Further, the whole incident was the result of a posting at Wikipedia Review, not on-wiki criticism. I don't see Cirt "doing the opposite of what he said he would do"; I see people not reading carefully and presuming that Cirt said something he did not.

What I found interesting was reading this after reading Scott Mac's position on Delicious carbuncle's first ARBSCI enforcement request against Cirt. Scott Mac wanted sanctions against Cirt, while other admins found Carbuncle's request faulty and not actionable. While both editors were warned, the sense I get of the comments is that several editors found Carbuncle "seem[ed] as if he instigated this conflict" and "clearly the dubious party here". (In fact, the comments were more pointed when Carbuncle filed a second request within an hour of the first request being closed.) See Future Perfect at Sunrise's comments here: [14] "Apparently, D.c. has been on a long campaign against Cirt, having posted about him extensively both on Wikipedia and on Wikipediareview for several months." In fact, digging further, I found that Cirt had previously sought, and obtained, an indefinite topic ban against Carbuncle from ARBSCI. [15] It worries me that there seems to be a certain list of names that keep appearing when criticism of Cirt is to be found, and that every time I look into the disputes, I seem to find Cirt acting with reason, consideration, good faith, and an intent to find a solution... and the disputants, not so much. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lar and Sadads defended Cirt against Scott in the thread. Say what now? Sadads appears to defend Cirt every-time he involves himself with related discussions, which by the look of it is quite often, but how on earth do you get Lar "defend[ing] Cirt against Scott" in that thread? To Quote Lar: "Nevertheless, I think Scott asks legitimate questions about your area of focus. I think you should answer them rather than taking umbrage," and "I applaud your reduction. I just think you should go all the way." (emphasis added). Just because Lar is being very civil and extremely tactful doesn't mean he's defending Cirt. Also the admins disagreeing with Scott in the AE request are Jehochman and Doc James who both seem to have a history of supporting Cirt from what I can tell, and that was brought up in relation to the AE request. You say you are worried about the same names appearing in these discussions. 1) I hope you are also including the same names that appear to defend Cirt and to accuse those who call some of his edits into question of hounding and other disruptive behavior. 2) I think you ought to dig further to see if the "same names" that are critical of Cirt's editing now have always been of that mind or if specific events precipitated this, and if those events are related to the later moments of involvement. You should especially consider the idea that if a problem is repeating itself without solution editors who feel that they understand the problem will most likely continue to try to have it solved. Do these editors have anything to gain from criticizing Cirt? Are they POV opponents of his? What is their motive? If you would WP:AGF for just one second you might realize that just maybe some of these people are simply concerned about something they feel is harmful to Wikipedia, its community and/or its editing environment.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not defend Cirt in everything, in fact I have expressed to him on multiple occassions that he should probably be redirecting his productivity on wiki to topic areas which have a little less controversy associated with them. However, I am just extremely alarmed at the aggressiveness of the rhetoric and persecution of him. The way in which various individuals have taken to trying to change Cirt's behaviour is extremely inappropriate and could have been handled with, for lack of a better way to describe the behaviour, more maturity. We are (or at least should be) a community built on principles of good faith, and I make it my business to defend individuals, who are likely humanly flawed, when they are persecuted aggressively without due cause, Sadads (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Troubled

I see that Cla68 (talk · contribs) has started a section which is entitled "Cirt's enablers", which I find troubling because it looks like the start of a type of "hit list". I'm not sure that this is constructive... although, I suppose that one faction enumerating those who they view to be the members of their opposition may be helpful, if there's really some confusion about that or something. I guess that I'm just wondering what the point of this is? Is the intent here to attack other editors because they are friendly towards Cirt?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed troubling, and looks like the out-of-process extension of the RfC/U to other disliked editors, who won't even have the basic protections of RfC/U prerequisites or the built-in space for a response. As it stands now, it serves to intimidate those editors who would offer a dissenting view to the certifiers of the RfC/U. When populated with names, it will only tar certain editors as "activists" and "bullies" by association. Insofar as this "hit list" makes no pretense towards dispute resolution or constructive dialogue, it offers a window into the motivations of the overall RfC/U on Cirt. Quigley (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "enablers" section is unlikely to be helpful, and I would urge Cla68 to delete it. However, I would object to discrediting the RfC/U on this basis — preferring, instead, to WP:AGF and assume that Cla68 honestly believes that "These editors may be driven by a good faith respect for Cirt's editing ability and work". We should concentrate on Cirt's conduct and whether Cirt should modify his/her behaviour, and leave to another time (if ever) the question of whether or not other editors' actions may have contributed to the situation (if indeed there is a "situation" here). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he's refactored it into a statement in defense of DC and JN, which seems acceptable to me. Thanks for considering this criticism, Cla. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps the "enablers" section is returning, now called "Across the line".[16]   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Elections

Is anyone unclear about the election-related evidence? Hiram Monserrate and Jeff Stone were disliked by Anonymous [17][18]. As a result, their opponents Kenneth Dickson, Joel Anderson and Jose Peralta had political advertisements written for them, and featured on the Wikipedia (and Wikiquote) main page in the run-up to the elections. Are you all right with the ethics of this? Do you feel that being able to place such content on project main pages is a reasonable perk due to a prolific Wikimedia contributor? --JN466 12:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is a related, standalone view: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Editing_around_16_March_2010_New_York_State_Senate_election.2C_and_June_8_2010_Republican_primary_for_the_California_State_Senate --JN466 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Predictions

1) People who supported the continued existence of the santorum article, friends of Cirt and various uninvolved parties will support Cirt.

2) People who opposed the santorum article, those who hold a grudge against Cirt and those who have prior disagreements with him will support JN466.

3) Cirt will get a kicking from JN466's supporters.

4) JN466 will get a kicking from Cirt's supporters.

5) There will be a lot of futile bickering.

6) Nothing productive will come of this RfC/U.

7) After this RfC/U has failed, JN466 will continue pursuing Cirt until the community finally gets fed up and imposes an interaction ban on both of them. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Cirt should stop doing things that are worth pursuing? Tarc (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he/she should also stop beating his husband or wife? Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But many of the things identified by critics of Cirt as "problems" are not seen as problems by many other editors: expanding the santorum article, writing articles on Dan Savage books, DYK submissions, etc. We can find a way to deal with whatever Cirt does that everyone sees as problematic (promotional tone, etc.), but I'm not sure how we bridge the gap with the larger issues when so many editors don't think they are issues at all. Gamaliel (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

They are not seen as problems by like-minded editors. Clique-editing is not a new Wikipedia phenomenon. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So everyone who disagrees with the RFC is in the wrong clique? Perhaps you should start another RFC on all of us. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed a box to hide and archive this conversation, because in truth, it is illuminating. Anyone reading the RfC page should recognize that this is a political trial, in which we are debating over what should be allowed, not what Cirt did. The question we really need to ask is, is there a path to peace? It's one thing to have normal arguments over content - it's another thing to have two political parties arguing over every word as a tactic toward radically different visions of Wikipedia. Is there some way that we can avoid having constant battles over whether most of what is in an article should be taken out, whether articles should be deleted, whether editors should be punished for trying to make articles or otherwise take part in the normal process of promoting them? I mean, could we fork the project, let the deletionists compress the content into a Micropedia while the inclusionists could build up a Macropedia? Anything? Wnt (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This debate doesn't have a thing to do with the deletionistism vs. inclusionism wiki-war. If you really think that this is what it is been about this whole time, well, naive is about the mildest thing I can say here. This is about Cirt deliberately violating WP:BLP policy by using the Wikipedia to propagate Dan Savage's anti-Santorum crusade. This is about Cirt elevating a concocted slur into a "neologism", using questionable sourcing to try to show the word being used in everyday English. This is about Cirt gaming DYK to increase the visibility of Dan Savage's books, thus elevating the visibility of the small-s "santorum" shtick...also accomplished by edit-warring the faux word into several sex-related templates while creating another entirely new one (now-deleted) to spotlight it. And you, Wnt, have been a part of this. A co-conspirator, accomplice, whatever colorful term we can find. You and many others, deliberately and royally fucking this place up by using it to further your personal ideological bent.

I think the above is what they proverbially call "throwing down the gauntlet", so, there you go. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So then this is an attempt to re-legislate the whole santorum saga?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. This is exactly the point I was trying to illustrate above. A few hours after it had been cited on Jon Stewart's show, producing a massive spike in usage and public interest, Cirt expanded an article; he added the term to a handful of templates in which it was only one of dozens of other linked articles; and he wrote several DYKs, none of which linked to or even mentioned the dispute article, as far as I saw. As many other editors have said, that is normal editing behaviour. When Sarah Palin made up some well-publicised nonsense about Paul Revere, it started a lot of editors working on that article. Same with the Japanese earthquake, the civil war in Libya and so on. Nothing that Cirt did appears to have affected the page ranking of Wikipedia's Santorum (neologism) article, nor could it have, as it was already at or almost at the top of search engine results months before he started editing it. I think that Tarc and others are seeing Cirt's edits through an ideological prism - Tarc's disapproval of the Santorum article is leading him to assign improper motives to Cirt's reasons for editing it. From what I've seen of this dispute, which first came to my notice at DYK, there is no reasonable evidence that Cirt was attempting to game search engine rankings for the article. Did people ever stop to think what the point of that would be when the article is already at the top of search engine results? Bottom line, this is a political dispute - all that this RfC/U is going to achieve is to give the Santorum partisans (on both sides) somewhere to vent. Prioryman (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that it's so much of an ideological issue (although that's certainly an aspect, since if they shared the ideology that they attribute to Cirt I doubt there would be complaints), but there's certainly an interpersonal issue here (personalities clashing, which I think that you're properly describing as a "political dispute"). I suspect that you're correct about "Tarc's disapproval of the Santorum article is leading him to assign improper motives to Cirt's reasons for editing it." for sure, but he's not the only one doing so. One thing though is that giving people a place to "vent" isn't a bad thing in my opinion, and it's certainly not pointless.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The only path to peace I see, short of forking the project, is to allow people to build articles from reliably sourced material without accusing them of promoting the subject simply because they want to work on it; without accusing them of breaking BLP by covering people involved in controversies with other people; without selectively decrying the promotional effect of templates and DYKs only when they support a point of view you don't like. And that is accomplished by clarifying that policy indeed does not and shall not prohibit these things. In other words, for the inclusionists to win. ;)

While I understand it may be "naive" to characterize this as inclusionists versus deletionists rather than Anonymous versus Scientology or Democrats versus Republicans, there's a reason: because the latter debates are affected by the simple truth that one side has a lot of facts on its side. So the other has a lot of facts to hide. And so inclusionism becomes associated with one side of many different wiki debates - and always the right side, regardless of the issue. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

<Turns to JN466 *kick*> OK, my part is done here. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuch! --JN466 00:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

*grin*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding points 3 and 4: I'll kick 'em both! The way I see it, Cirt has a blind spot when it comes to being too positive, and Jayen has a blind spot when it comes to Cirt. Neither blind spot makes either editor a bad person, nor merits their removal from the project dragging them in front of every tribunal Wikipedia has to offer, especially when one has a history of withdrawing from confrontation to the point where it's fair to wonder if they'll be driven to leave altogether. I don't hate either of them, nor am I devoted to either of 'em. I'm here because I'm a pretty good writer and researcher, and I want part of my legacy to this planet to be a net increase in humanity's knowledge. Wikipedia's a good way to do that. Helping other editors past their blind spots works toward that goal. I don't think this RfC/U does that. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the idea that anyone should be "removed from the project" come from in the first place. I see the claim getting kicked all over this talk page that people want Cirt removed, but what is the source of that because I don't see it anywhere?Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can only plead that I should not have posted that when I was so tired. Reading it again, I see that I failed to fully type out part of my thoughts, and as such wound up with a misstatement. I have corrected it. While I don't see anyone actually calling for Cirt's expulsion, I look at Cirt's historical reaction to these occasional dogpiles (namely, withdrawing from areas of editing), and I believe that no one can reasonably believe that this RfC/U won't end with a further withdrawal. At some point, after enough withdrawals, there's nothing left; one is implicitly removed from the project. See my longer statement below. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounders vs Whistleblowers

One of the accusations against Cirt in this RfC/U is that he did not come to an article "organically". While this is framed as an issue of "honesty" and "deceit" for Cirt, the same burden to come upon articles "organically" is not held to Cirt's accusers. The view by Pieter Kuiper is a prime example. He complains that he did one action, "fixed a deletion request on Commons of some of those anti-Scientology video files of his", which "got me on his/her list of ideological adversaries" and got him banned. However, the AE request he points to shows a more complex and common pattern of Cirt's enemies. Like Cla68, who was incited by Cirt's edits on "List of Scientologists", certain people cannot resist following the edit histories of those with whom they've had a minor dispute, and habitually reversing their actions the follower thinks is unjustified.

As evidenced by Cirt's AE thread, Pieter Kuiper did this by following Cirt out of commons into en.wiki, finding fault in Cirt's created article about Aaron Saxton, and then again in the "List of Scientologists" article, and then declining one of Cirt's DYKs with an unusually combative reason. It was Pieter Kuiper's edit-warring against Cirt to keep these changes in an area with active Arbcom remedies, among other things, that got him banned; not Wikilawyer magic. It is clear that Pieter Kuiper already decided himself an "ideological adversary" to Cirt before Cirt even filed the complaint.

But Jayen466 does not see it this way, endorsing Kuipel's summary with the lament that this AE action "never got overturned". It is fair to assume that Cla68 has a similarly sympathetic view, considering Cla68's section "whistleblower protection", formerly "Cirt's enablers", recasts those who point out behavior like Pieter Kuipel's as bullies or intimidators. However, it would go a long way towards resolving the dispute if the battleground mentality were dropped, and the Wikihounding policy reexamined. The connotations of "whistleblower" and "shooting the messenger", both used by opponents of Cirt in this conflict, suggest that Cirt is some pervasive juggernaut that must be stopped, and that following and disputing his every last edit to the death is justified, if not a duty for all good Wikipedians. However, if Cirt were to be treated as a fallable human being, who can feel annoyance and distress at the caravan of microscopic scrutiny surrounding him, encouraged by certain off-wiki sites; if his concessions in topic areas were to be taken as the basis of a solution instead of a signal to go for the kill, then a key component of what should be an acceptable solution to both parties will have appeared before our very eyes.

Taking from DGG's proposed remedy, in any desired outcome, those who feel themselves Cirt's "ideological adversaries" should relieve themselves of Cirtwatch duty. Already, this RfC/U has attracted the attention of previously uninvolved members who would take up the mantle. This way, the perception among those sympathetic to Cirt that he is being "Wikihounded" will cease, and the perception among Cirt's accusers that they are the victims of "bullying" for these accusations will cease. It is natural for those accused of both Wikihounding and bullying to take an absolutist stance, and to argue that objectively, one of these exists, and the other is a fabrication. But perceptions are powerful, and regardless of the relative merits of each accusation, this proposed component of a solution will eradicate the potential for an explosion of bad feelings on both sides, wherever Cirt's editing is organically brought up. Thoughts? Quigley (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, "So what?" is unusuallly combative? For me, a yawn is the natural response to the question: "Did you know that Australian Senator Nick Xenophon quoted statements by former Scientology official Aaron Saxton during a speech in Parliament?" The only people utterly fascinated by this kind of thing are people obsessed with scientology. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The extreme pro- and anti-cult editing are often hard to tell apart. Same tone, same obsessionality with trivia. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, there is a lot of sense in what you are saying. On the other hand, it's not for nothing that Cirt has attracted attention on that website. His strong POV; his prolific contributions (who can keep up with someone who makes 4,000 edits a month?), his frequent contributions to "loaded" topics (like a critic's book, a lost lawsuit, etc.); his combativeness and knack to get opponents sanctioned—these are all factors that have contributed to that. Pieter, for example, did not "find fault" when he corrected Saxton's birthdate, he "found an error and corrected it". He was still templated. When Cirt created Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, he prominently and at length discussed allegations of incest made against Erhard (a living person), but failed to mention that these allegations were later retracted. He mentioned tax issues, but didn't mention that it was the IRS who later on paid Erhard $200,000 in damages. I wish there were more editors who looked at these articles; as it was, Cirt gave those who did look at it to make it NPOV, after it came up at AfD, a very hard time [19]. Cirt took one of his disputants there, User:THF, to WP:COIN [20] and WP:ANI [21] on the same day (over THF's actions at a different article), all while his Erhard-related dispute with THF, which had started at the article's AFD the previous day, was ongoing. That's the sort of stuff that gets you noticed at WR, and legitimately so. --JN466 23:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't get it

I'm looking at the evidence presented here, and... I mean, I'm really trying hard to see and understand the criticism, but... I can see some minor issues, I guess, but from what I can see they're easily mitigated by the fact that, while it may not actually be "hounding", there's certainly a bit of a "battlefield mentality" that both factions have fostered. I don't consider myself part of the "clique" (which is what Tarc apparently sees), but if some of you want to include me in it just because I'm more on Cirt's 'side' here then on JN's then I'm fine with that. Y'all seem like fairly reasonable people (I've talked to JN466 on the VP about that essay, for example. He listened to what I had to say, which tells me that he's hardly unreasonable), and everyone involved here seem to be veterans. This seems like a series of content dispute skirmishes that have been steadily building up to something like this occurring.

I guess that I'm wondering... is this really about Cirt specifically, or is it a wider issue (I mean, Cirt is obviously at the center of this, but...)? Are there actually a couple of multi-party factions here? Maybe RFC/U, with it's inherent set of "rules" and standards, isn't the best venue for this?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

multiply the minor issues by the over 2,000 edits per month rate. I edit kinda regularly and 200 is a lot in a month. each incident is not a big deal. the fact that there is one every month or multiple ones on the same month is the issue. The user's sheer volume and dedication to work on the project are what makes the bias, forum shopping, and requests to shoot the messenger about them such a problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's editing rate has dropped significantly since at least 14 June (weeks before this RfC/U), where he indicated that he was going to "reduce [his] activity level significantly" and "shift efforts in new areas of interest", which he has done, to U.S. Supreme Court cases. Quigley (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, there's nothing quite like getting the fuck outta Dodge after you've just lit several fires, is there? Tarc (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The certifiers' stated desired outcome is not to punish Cirt for alleged past wrongs, but to amend Cirt's future behavior. If this is an honest statement of intent, then they might have already succeeded. Quigley (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So this is where I'm a bit confused. Cirt's editing rates seem to be the main issue, which really make me wonder about the motivation here. Is "contributing too often" really going to be something that we're going to turn into a problem? Don't you guys think that this will have wider implications then any effect on Cirt? ...This whole thing just gives me a creepy feeling. There appears to be a significant amount of anger and resentment on the part of the "anti-Cirt" crowd, just below the surface. If the problem is that our content seems to be slanted, then the solution to that seems obvious to me (and the solution shouldn't be to attempt to get rid of other content editors).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming obvious, I think, that the aim is to get rid of Cirt or at the least to make it impossible for him to contribute without being hounded at every turn. I'm a newbie to this dispute (I only learned of it when it spilled onto DYK) but there seem to be two things going on here - a long-running dispute between JN466/Carbuncle and Cirt relating to Scientology (or cults in general?), and a newer dispute over the Santorum article. It seems to me that the long-running disputants have taken advantage of the most recent dispute to try to go after Cirt with this RfC/U. As an aside, I agree about getting a creepy feeling, not least because of comments like this: "I am intending to do a monthly thread here about Cirt's Scientology edits, because I would like to help them kick their nasty habit. Cirt, I don't say this in a mean way, but when you edit articles related to Scientology, it makes your fingers and breath smell like Scientology. And no one wants to kiss someone whose breath smells like Scientology." [22] I don't see how you can characterise such obvious harassment as "whistleblowing". Cirt isn't under any content restrictions as far as I know (surely they would have been mentioned by JN466) so this looks very much like an attempt to bully him into withdrawing from particular content areas or from Wikipedia as a whole. I can't support that. Prioryman (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty good description of my own observations (and conclusions).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I definitely share V's feelings. Unless we want to limit Wikipedia to a certain class of high-functioning autistics, human nature says that virtually every editor is going to have personal biases. However, having thousands of active editors means that the biases average out. Someone makes an edit that seems biased? You edit their edit. If you disagree, you take it to talk and hash it out, maybe by getting a 3O or via an RFC. That's how the place is supposed to work! I haven't seen evidence that Cirt won't back down when confronted with reasonable evidence contrary to his position. (Why would you back down from someone who doesn't present reasonable evidence to the contrary?) In fact, it seems to me like Cirt's behavior is lapsing into learned helplessness at this point. This concerns me. I do not want to be the next person who is run out of town on a rail. This is personal for me, but not because I know Cirt (I don't) or because I'm part of some clique (I'm not) or for political reasons: It's personal for me because the contents of First they came... keeps running through my head. If there were a good case here, or if it were limited to just the editing behavior that is worrisome and actually discussed it instead of using it to vilify Cirt... if I didn't keep wondering if this is just groundwork to take Cirt back to ArbCom for formal ostracism... I wouldn't feel that way about this RfC/U. But... here we are. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! That's where the "creepy feeling" is coming from, and First they came... keeps running through my head as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite right Macwhiz, this has become personal because the approach to the treatment of Cirt has been degrading to all those involved in ways that hurts the culture of the project, which we are very much part of, Sadads (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This comment hits the mark. What distinguishes Arbcom cases from ordinary aggregated content disputes is the level of tendentiousness involved. Cirt has not displayed the level of aggressive persistence in his views that many of his past enemies, who have come out of the woodwork to condemn him here, have shown. At every level of this recent dispute, he has voluntarily withdrawn into smaller and smaller areas in which to edit. The only goal left for his detractors seems to be to have him stop editing completely. This is the real story of bullying here. Quigley (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeeze have we already come to Godwin's law? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Godwin's law no longer applies, because unfortunately, Mike Godwin is no longer the legal counsel. :( Wnt (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But did we mess up the Sircar/Case Corollary to Godwin's Law, as sanctioned by the man himself? [23] (Do we start counting from the debate on santorum or the start of the RfC/U?) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has used Wikipedia's dispute resolution system on several occasions, including a couple that progressed all the way to arbitration, I can attest that the process is not only time-consuming, but often involves having to endure some fairly harsh criticism from observers who don't approve and apparently feel that saying, "I don't agree with you" is an insufficient response. Emotions seem to run a little high, which I think might be helped if people remembered that this is just a website with most of its participants hiding behind anonymous accounts. Nevertheless, I guess being obliquely compared with the Nazis is par for the course. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Huh? Do you all know how First they came… goes, and what that would translate to in the present situation? It would mean that when someone criticized Cirt's editing everyone would have just stood by while Cirt was crucified. That is exactly the opposite of what has been happening. When someone criticizes Cirt's edits it usually amounts to nothing as a best case scenario, and retaliation against the critic as a worst case scenario. Yet somehow you want people to believe that Cirt is a helpless victim here who is being bullied while the world stands by watching but refuses to help? A majority of people engaging this RFC have written and endorsed comments that state rather emphatically that Cirt's critics are full of shit, but somehow that means that Cirt is going to be railroaded? What planet do you live on? I'm sorry, but this is really starting to piss me off. Disagree with our comments all you want, but don't start playing the victim card in this way because it's totally offensive to every single person on this planet who actually has been a victim in their lives. Is your aim to increase the levels of drama and resentment against those who in good faith have come here to express their concerns? If you want to help us navigate this issue then point out the flaws in the arguments and endorse summaries that show how those critical of Cirt are wrong. And btw who wants Cirt gone? Who has proposed anything even remotely close to removing Cirt from the project? And who are Cirt's old "enemies"? The rhetoric being masticated and passed around above is completely counterproductive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I didn't even want to touch the Nazi comparison, but clearly that's a rhetorical flourish that was not lost on me when I read this tripe. What is wrong with people?Griswaldo (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Totally offensive to every single person on this planet who actually has been a victim in their lives"? Talk about hyperbole and resentment. What I was talking about when I said Cirt's "past enemies" were comments like Pieter Kuiper's and LuftWaffle0's, where miniscule content and conduct disputes are woven together to create an alleged "pattern" of "bullying" and other behaviors; where the rebuttals to these cases exist, but are ignored because of the sheer volume of frivolous complaints being thrown at Cirt. Those who resent Cirt's activities on the project—and soon uninvolved editors, the certifiers hope—necessarily speak in platitudes, because they have information overload and little else in terms of quality of complaint. How can we speak of the real issues surrounding Cirt in a coherent, unified manner? We cannot, because it is only the sheer force of rage and resentment among certain editors that holds them together. Quigley (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You cannot because all you have to offer, apparently, is this rhetorical tripe. Someone compared those they disagree with to Nazis (though ironically they had to butcher the logic of the original story to do so), and you all stood around patting each others backs because you shared this level of outrage at the Nazilike Cirt critics of the world! And you want to tell me about my use of hyperbole? Give me a break son. It's disgusting what this has devolved to, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart, not hyperbolically.Griswaldo (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling criticisms against the filers and pilers on "rhetorical tripe" doesn't exactly win many friends. It's pretty clear that no one's saying Cirt is getting Final Solutioned. We're saying the attacks on him are disturbing and set a precedent that we don't want to see set. First they came is about Nazis, but the clear exhortation the author makes is to stand up when you see people get mistreated, even if you disagree with their views. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "rhetorical tripe" see WP:SPADE. There is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia that says I need to tolerate being compared to a Nazi.Griswaldo (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Son"?! And with all of this condescension, you really wonder why some people suspect that you're trying to drive people away from Wikipedia? Give me a break. This never "devolved" into anything disgusting; it was disgusting from the moment, long before this RfC/U, that Delicious Carbuncle started ogling Cirt's edits, talking about "kissing" and the "smell" of Cirt's "fingers and breath". This is the language of Cirt's critics, and you're legitimizing it. Quigley (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I Delicious Carbuncle? Is DGG Delicious Carbuncle? Is Cla68 Delicious Carbuncle? Is Collect? Is Pieter? Is Jayen466? I wont defend anything DC has said here or elsewhere, so why the hell should I or any of the other people offering criticisms of Cirt in the RFC suffer these ridiculous comparisons because of what DC said somewhere in cyberspace? "But Delicious Carbuncle said really bad things about Cirt over at evil Wikipedia Review" is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Check yourself and what you're saying if you didn't intend to drag anyone but DC into the mud because you did. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not an accurate interpretation of my own viewpoint, though. First they came... comes to mind as a reason for speaking up during this at all, for me. I don't personally have a bone to pick with anyone here (my only direct relationship to this issue is what I mentioned above, where I interacted with JN466 regarding concerns with the WikiBomb essay, immediately after he announced it's presence on the Village Pump). You guys may take exception to being compared to Nazis (which is certainly understandable), and may even be dismissive of these views because of that comparison (which would be unfortunate), but I hope that you can be reassured somewhat in the fact that (for me at least) the comparison is only incidental. First they came... can be used, and to me is used here, to express a feeling of strong misgivings related to observing the sort of behavior that this RFC/U appears to be. I certainly have no intention of calling you or anyone else a Nazi, but I don't want to see Cirt or anyone else run out of Wikipedia on a rail simply because some people don't agree with his (or her) politics. That smacks of... well, nothing good, I can tell you that (intentionally avoiding any other real world comparisons here, or other labels, regardless of how appropriate they may be).

I understand being upset based on the feeling that you're the messenger who is being shot, but we're trying to explain to yourself (and others) that there are implications to this that we have a hard time accepting. I don't think that the approach being taken here (especially the intense personalization of all this, centering on Cirt himself) is the best approach for the Project (and unfortunately, I have to admit that I wonder if that's not part of the goal of one or two of the participants, being an attempt to disrupt from within... The connections to WR certainly don't help alleviate that train of thought).

The one good thing to all of this is that at least it's actually being aired out. There seems to be a lot of resentment here because the concerns of quite a few people have been buried over the years, largely due to the "shoot the messenger" criticism. I think it's a mistake to attribute all of that to be Cirt's fault, though. Doing so sounds an awful lot like some sort of strange conspiracy theory, to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet that's a complete 180 from the other thing that "troubled" you just above. You say that Cirt is not totally to blame for "shooting the messenger" now, but just above you were troubled exactly because someone appeared to be getting ready to discuss the others who might share that blame. And yes, you did join in the comparison of those you disagree with here to Nazis, and yes it remains offensive.Griswaldo (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And for frack's sake who the hell is running Cirt out of Wikipedia on a rail?Griswaldo (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing; I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sympathetic towards your position (which makes all of this a bit confusing and difficult to express). I just have serious reservations about the manner in which y'all are trying to achieve... recognition that you've been wronged by the community? That, right there, is a huge part of the problem with this; I'm having a hard time finishing that sentence. The stated "desired outcome" on the front of this is tough to believe, and even if it is believed I think (and apparently other do as well) that there are wider ranging implications to all of this then you all are willing to admit. The structure chosen for this, and partially the venue chosen for this, is problematic.

Anyway, I hope that you'll stay engaged for a bit longer on the talk page here. I think that we should hash this out, collectively. Actually, I think that this discussion has a chance to be more productive than the RFC/U itself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the "troubling" aspect of the "Cirt's enablers" thing was that it was being added to an RFC/U... I mean, structurally this isn't supposed to be a threaded discussion type of thing. I'd like to point out that Richwales, who appears to be more on "your side", agreed with that concern as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we stop with the "sides" thing? It really just reinforces the battlefield mentality. I really dont like being lumped in here with Carbnucle who I defended Cirt from and evidently so does Griswaldo. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 03:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 could make a big show of good faith to this effect by removing his "Whistleblower protection" view, which by its origins is a generalized attack on anyone who has defended Cirt from any accusation in the past four years. Because while Ohms law and Macwhiz speak in hypotheticals about this RfC/U affecting them sometime in the future, the certifiers have already thrown a poisoned net over a broad range of users, or "enablers"—to use their dehumanizing language—, extending the scope of the crucifixion beyond Cirt to anyone who has stood up against his accusers. The "sides" are not a supplement from this discussion: they are the original sin of this RfC/U. Quigley (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 edited the section to satisfy the reasonable concerns that Richwales had. By the way have you actually read Cla68's evidence in that section? Read through all the linked discussions? I highly suggest looking through the Delicious Carbuncle links specifically, then come back and tell me with a straight face that 1) people like me are on a certain "side" here, 2) Cirt hasn't pushed the boundaries of noticeboard use (hint see WP:FORUMSHOPPING) and 3) there aren't people out there running interference for Cirt when he gets into trouble. I, for one, rather explicitly admonished DC for his behavior in that scenario even supporting some kind of action against him for what he did actually do (violate WP:POINT) and defended Cirt, who around that time was showing a lot of good faith in fixing some of his POV pushing issues on other pages. However, Cirt stepped over the line when he refused to accept the results at AN/I and forumshopped his way to WP:AE, where he specifically requested help from admins on their talk pages. One of those admins showed up and topic banned DC, which was excessive and showed no parity. When truly uninvovled admins showed up at DC's AE appeal and started suggesting that either both editors should have the sanction or neither, one of Cirt's frequent defenders started running interference. The matter resolved in the lifting of DCs sanction, despite a clear consensus between truly uninvolved admins that Cirt and DC should have been topic banned from BLPs for some period of time. This incident rather clearly dispels several of the bogus claims you have all been spouting off here. 1) That there are "sides" in this matter, and that all the people critical of Cirt in the RFC are on some nefarious team out to get him and 2) that there aren't people out there who are on the ready to run interference for Cirt when others suggest remedies that might apply to him. Regarding the second point you might not like the fact that this type of thing does happen, but that doesn't change reality. And btw, I'm sure that a majority of the time that Cirt is criticized he is rightfully defended by people. No one is suggesting that justifiably defending Cirt amounts to enabling him. This regards specific types of situations quite clearly. I'm sick and tired of the straw man generalizations aimed at discrediting specific criticisms. Just utterly sick of it.Griswaldo (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the "sides" thing either, but... it's endemic throughout this whole subject. I don't know how to avoid it, really. I have similar feelings of discomfort about apparently being on "this side" as you have about being on "that side", though. Maybe this is something which we can use in order to find commonality, here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And how is it "endemic" exactly? I see people on this talk page repeating the same tired notions that there is a "side" of people who are nefariously working against Cirt for some yet unexplained reason. There are no natural "sides" in the RFC proper, but those who object to the various criticisms of Cirt have absolutely worked as hard as they can to make it look like a mere matter of clique behavior, partisanship, etc. I just don't see it anywhere except for in your claims. Otherwise maybe you'd care to substantiate them with some actual evidence.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that many of you here claim to be new to these issues, yet at the same time you boldly pronounce an understanding of the factionalism you think is involved here. If you are new to these issues how likely is it that you really understand the deeper social dynamics you keep on claiming here? Given the fact that I am less new to these issues, and I don't see what you're talking about, I'd expect the answer is not very. You want to convince someone that there it's fair to group all of those who have offered criticisms into one big gang then provide some evidence of that. If you can't then stop poisoning the well.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer that exactly. It seems pretty self evident to me, from the links and whatnot that yourself and others have provided as evidence (let alone the statements). My observations lead me to the conclusion that there is factionalism here, regardless of whether you or anyone else intended them to exist.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not an answer. What is the source of the factionalism? Simply agreeing at various times during different disputes that Cirt might be at fault to greater or lesser degrees does not create a "faction." So what sits at the basis of this "faction."?Griswaldo (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Is your aim to increase the levels of drama and resentment against those who in good faith have come here to express their concerns?"

Well, first off, let's clear one thing up: I am not calling anyone a Nazi. First they came... was first written about the Nazis, yes, but it is a parable. As our own article says, Niemöller's "statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control."

I came here in good faith and presented my concern that this RfC/U, presented in the fashion in which it was given, looks like a witch hunt. The RfC/U suggests that Cirt deserves some sort of sanction because of a long-term pattern of disparate activity, most of which is not against the rules in and of itself. As I read it—and I see that I am not alone in this—it asks that we declare Cirt did wrong for doing things that most of us do at least occasionally, if not frequently: Writing articles on the basis of a suggestion; avoiding the drama that comes with negative statements in BLPs; seeking permission to use a photo; creating templates; editing articles in line with one's own interests; expanding an article after a massive increase in WP:N and WP:RS; using the term several to refer to two; asking others for help... Yet the RfC/U doesn't really distinguish what exactly makes doing those things bad.

And some of the claims in this RfC/U seem to be decidedly lacking in good faith: The selective quotation of the Anonymous forums, the omission of Jon Stewart's story in the timeline of the santorum edits, faulting Cirt for marshaling attention to WP:SEOBOMB when it was clearly an attack polemic, the misrepresentation of undertakings to "shift focus away from" and "avoid" a topic as a promise to never touch the topic again... That is poisoning the well.

When I see that occur, and I see editors that I otherwise respect and believe to be of sound judgement endorse such views, yes, I become concerned. "If you are new to these issues how likely is it that you really understand the deeper social dynamics you keep on claiming here?" Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it? So far, this RfC/U isn't doing a very good job of explaining it. If Cirt's pattern of behavior is so bad to merit this much discussion—Jayen's been beating this drum for three years now, right?—then surely it can be explained to a newcomer clearly and succinctly.

But instead, I see an editor being faulted for doing things I have done and believed to be the right way to edit Wikipedia. I see some questionable tactics being used to discredit this editor. So yes, I find myself wondering, if I do not speak up now, and "the consensus of the community" is set that these things are wrong, will I then be at risk of sanction too?

So it looks to me like, to avoid creating drama, Cirt has backed away from editing Scientology, New Religious movement articles, DYK, interaction with Jayen, certain FAs, and political BLPs. Cirt posts to WikiProject talk pages before creating any new articles. These are pretty substantial chunks of repertoire to excise. As Quigley said, Cirt continually voluntarily withdraws into smaller and smaller areas in response to the rather substantial criticism. If I were in Cirt's shoes, I'd be thinking about giving up entirely, and I don't think that's right, just, or in the best interests of the project.

We have a statement that "Cirt has displayed a long-term pattern of... dishonesty and deceit", and the allegations of broken promises to withdraw seem to be the evidence for that statement—yet it asks for Cirt to make promises about future behavior. Wait, what? Accuse a man of lying about promises to do better, and then demand that he make some more of them to atone? So I think it beggars belief to suggest that this RfC/U asks only for admonishment. We know Cirt reacts to this sort of criticism by withdrawing from the field. The predictable outcome of this RfC/U is to cause further withdrawal. That's indeed railroading—"to procedurally bully someone into an unfair agreement".

Yet for the cries of rhetorical tripe, drama and resentment, mastication, butchery of logic, hyperbole, disgust, straw man generalizations, factionalism, and poisoning the well, if "simply agreeing at various times during different disputes that Cirt might be at fault to greater or lesser degrees" does create a faction, well, I'd have to count myself part of that faction. But I would not sign off on a statement about Cirt that kicks off the discussion with misrepresentations, and I would not dismiss the concerns of anyone who couldn't see my own point for all the hyperbole.

As much as this RfC/U purports to be a comment on Cirt, it's not written as one. It's written as the latest of many grudges against Cirt, and one that has a chilling effect on the behavior of a multitude of other editors. Give me a neutral, clear, well-sourced enumeration of Cirt's actual editing problems and I'll most likely endorse it. This RfC/U is not that document. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

whatever the factions

Whatever the factions users should attempt to step back from their personal positions and attempt to look at the editing patters of the user and to assist them by objectively commenting on the issues as laid out in the case. Clearly there are multiple problems with Cirts contributions. Simply supporting the user on the grounds of factionalism or whatever will not help address the clear issues that are laid out on the RFC page. If this RFC does not address the editing patterns they will only be repeated and the next location the user Cirt will find themselves at will be Arbitration, and they do look at the issues and edit patterns objectively. Failing to deal objectively and beneficially with one level of the dispute process just beckons the next level. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to reply to this, because to me it's "factionalizing" participants in this discussion all by itself. The implication is that yourself and those who agree with you are able to step back and "see the true issues" (so to speak), while those of us who fail to agree with what you're saying are not being objective. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's what's coming across.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment needs or requests no reply. Take it with a pinch of salt or don't take it at all. It is a stand alone personal opinion and not a focus or request for opinion and discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, "you'll listen to what I have to say, and that's it"? This doesn't seem like a very constructive thread.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I think my point was clearly made and without the need for me to restate it. I do find your habit of commenting out of the timeline disruptive, if its not against indenting guidelines it should be, can you indent please and follow the timelime. Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I agree there is factionalism here, but please understand that I did not speak in favor of Cirt because he is "in my faction". I spoke in favor because I, and many other people, do not believe, for example, that expanding articles, submitting multiple DYK hooks, writing articles about neologisms successfully started about living people, failing to add text based on a tabloid article critical to a living person, adding File: links, or reporting people to admin boards who are then blocked by an admin based on the admin's independent judgment, are crimes in the first place. No matter who does these things. This is an objective and beneficial decision - Wikipedia has too many rules already, and we don't need to be making up new ones on the spot. But you should know that there is also a certain amount of skepticism on my side about the objectivity of people on yours. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, support support support meu amigo, is not imo really a helpful position for the person being discussed - as I have stated, so this section is not really a place to add more of that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to ignore the role of factionalism in the pursuit of Cirt. It goes back years.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's contributions are divisive in themselves, that is part of the report. If a user writes an NPOV article no one comes looking. The user Cirt has created the factionalism through their contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no shortage of people complaining about NPOV articles in politics - especially where Republicans are concerned. And if you don't want your comments to be discussed, you really oughtn't post them on a discussion page. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's recent contributions have been beyond such minor complaints and disrupted the whole project - attach that to the historic similar edit patterns and you have a clear contribution issue. - that is why we are here, not because of frothy lube. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The frothy lube issue actually seems to be a rather trivial example here. It just also happens to be what got Slimvirgin and then Coren so hot and bothered that they started imitating action. But that doesn't mean that "santorum" is a pivitol issue in the RFC, and indeed I don't see it treated as such by those who are critical of some of Cirt's behaviors.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any common principle on which we could all agree?

In the interests of moving beyond factionalism, I was wondering, can we all agree to dismiss any of these charges as just plain wrong?

For a first issue which I think hasn't been argued yet, I would like to dismiss all consideration of charges that Cirt "got someone blocked/banned" - once in the initial complaint, once in Pieter Kuiper's response. My feeling is that if you suggest someone should be blocked on a noticeboard, without making clearly false statements, and an admin makes the decision to apply a block based on that, then the responsibility for the block is on the admin, not the person making the report. I am not saying those blocks are necessarily fair; just that they aren't Cirt's responsibility. I am also not saying that recommending someone to be blocked is blameless if you do it and the admin decides the block is unjustified, especially if this happens frequently or appears to be forum shopping. But to me it looks really bad to have people saying "he got me blocked" as part of the case against someone. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I could easily agree on this. Such issues are minor compared to WWW publication of promotional content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

People are free to say what they wish here as far as I am concerned (within reason.) "He got me blocked" is not the greatest argument in the world as you just observed. Should poor arguments be removed? is a question I dont like. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I could agree to this as well. I understand what you're saying as well RA, but... the idea is to try to get to what people think are the really important issues, and this seems like an easy issue to set aside.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that removing the absurd arguments is a good start. RA, I understand what you're saying about removing poor arguments; if Wnt were suggesting that we actually delete them from the page, I'd be wholeheartedly agreeing with you. But I think Wnt means "remove" in the sense of "dismissal of charges": an endorsed statement that a particular charge is without merit, or at least not something that rises to the level of scrutiny an RfC/U provides. There are definitely several items presented here that could gain consensus for such, not least of which is Wnt's suggested item. Much as I would ideally prefer to see this RfC/U be withdrawn and replaced by one written more neutrally by someone without such an, ah, colorful and storied history with Cirt, this suggestion at least moves us forward. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. Do you or Wnt agree with any of the other criticisms of Cirt's editing made by people other than the RFC initiator? I ask because you've not endorsed any such statements. So far the only common ground either of you have suggested regards the dismissal of one of the criticisms levied against Cirt. If we continue down this path which of the criticisms will you actually get behind? I don't intend on stretching my principles to agree to all kinds of concessions that go in one direction.Griswaldo (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

To respond to Griswaldo's question, the main thing that Cirt has done which I'll admit is annoying is making promises to disengage rather than fighting it out at the time. I mean, I've talked about factionalism above, but I don't see Cirt as a member of my 'faction" because he doesn't really get up and argue for his rights the way I'd like. Instead he makes retreats that seem to get him picked on more, which have allowed the charges in this document to pile up unanswered. In this game he's not really my teammate, he's the ball. Now even so, as a matter of principle, I don't think an editor can be held to a binding commitment if he tells some other editor in a discussion that he'll back off editing a topic. It's up to him to decide how much and how long; that's what makes it "voluntary". But these retreats are a missed opportunity and have contributed to these troubles, because otherwise all (rather than most) of the issues here would be things being reargued after being debated to closure at some time in the past. I think in the future, in regard to any and all editors, we should put less emphasis on statements about withdrawing from the topic. We should try to say whether a pattern of behavior is right or wrong, as a matter of principle, whenever there is underlying political disagreement, not as a push to judge the editor, but as a push for clarity in how Wikipedia works. Wnt (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur (incidentally, the characterization of Cirt being the ball is compelling to me. Kudos). Oh, except I'd edit the last part to be "not as a push to judge the editor, but as a push for resolution of the issue."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it this way: I definitely see worrisome smoke and am looking for fire on the following points:

• Misquoting references in a way that alters what they say
• Questionable use of self-published YouTube videos
• Excessively positive articles (albeit I'm open to the "tired of BLP zealot beatdowns" defense, but only to a point)
• A tendency to undertake promises to change editing habits that are phrased in such a way that they are often misunderstood (although I see no reason to believe this is conscious or malicious)

I'll even raise you a concern not stated in the RfC/U: Since I started editing here, I remember seeing a few occasions where Cirt used admin powers somewhat capriciously, but... not maliciously, but more like an eager puppy, y'know? But before I would make a Federal case out of it, I'd want to see if it was just a new-admin thing, and how many new admins go through the same thing.

I'm not saying those are the only things I could agree on; just that those are the only ones where the RfC/U isn't making it very difficult for me to see the basis of the accusation. And I'll close by noting that I did, in fact, endorse Richwales' criticism earlier this evening. I need to think more on DGG's and RA's views. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I would be far more likely to endorse a desired outcome that's rehabilatory, rather than penal. If, for the sake of argument, I did agree with all the points Jayen presented, I can't see how I could accept the proposed outcome. It would make no sense. If Cirt really did do all this stuff, and all the hypothetical Cirt-supporters haven't set him straight, I don't see how he could be trusted to continue editing—we'd have established Cirt's word is no good. But I don't agree with all the points, I don't think it's that bad, and I do get the sense he is willing to address his problems if we approach this as helpful neighbors. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone would disagree with #3. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What about articles related to Scientology or Werner Erhard? Excessively positive? I don't think so. I think people have been arguing that some articles written by Cirt are promotional. Promotional means more than simply excessively positive, but even so not all his articles are promotional in a positive sense.Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He is considering points made by people. Let's leave it at that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I could be sufficiently neutral on the topic of Scientology to offer a worthwhile opinion. I'm not sure that we need to drag Scientology into it, though; there ought to be plenty of examples either way without crossing that bridge. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would we expect to find negative writing about subjects outside the ones that Cirt clearly has a negative attitudes towards? I don't follow. POV pushing can work in either direction ... excessively positive or excessively negative, but both require an impetus. If I edited Wikipedia mostly on topics related to Wicca, an I hated Wicca, and someone decided to start an RFC on my editing pointing out that I have a lot of negative POV pushing in the area of Wicca I suppose someone should tell them to find other examples of negative POV pushing from me, unrelated to Wicca? Makes no sense.Griswaldo (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, why have you not endorsed any statements that rebut criticisms of Cirt's editing? (Khazar's view is, on the whole, very negative about Cirt, except to make a meek acknowledgement of the "quality content [Cirt]'s created".) Is this not "stretching [one's] principles to agree to all kinds of concessions that go in one direction" on your part? Quigley (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see a lot of "rebuttals." I see a lot of dismissive comments, both here on this page and in the RFC.Griswaldo (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)\

That said I will promise to reread them all tomorrow. Maybe I've been too dismissive of them myself. I meant that honestly. I'm happy to reengage the comments I have not endorsed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Speaking for myself, I'm not at all out to vilify yourself or anyone else here. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The RfC/U process solicits summaries "written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete." You cannot say that the only productive and principled comments are the ones that praise Jayen466's and Cla68's summary, or that agree Cirt should be placed under sanctions. Quigley (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well my own comment, for instance, does none of those things so I'm unsure why you made that leap. As I just stated above, however, I will earnestly re-read the other comments tomorrow when I'm more awake.Griswaldo (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to using the term promotional as I used it myself in my response to the RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this comment is in relation to macwhiz's, specifically regarding "Excessively positive articles" (so, you're saying you'd support "Excessively promotional articles")?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a response to Griswaldo's response to me, but yes, I would support either of the two wordings, though the latter is probably more spot on. 14:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I understand it right that a few editors here are trying to propose deleting some editor's views from the RfC without their permission? If so, I think this is a first. Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should not delete views/claims from an RFC, even when they are clearly fictitious. However, by the same token, I think there should be consequences for filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges, and this RFC would clearly qualify. Raul654 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a serious charge Raul. I do not think there is agreement on that. Can you please list the "provably false statements and invalid charges" here so that those you accuse can respond. These types of statements amount to slander (and no I don't mean in any legal sense) unless they are accompanied by evidence.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally doubt Raul even read any of the RfC/U before he declared it wholly without merit. --JN466 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You've made it very difficult for people who value their time to take this RfC/U seriously, by demanding hours of background reading from users—many of whom did not feel incensed by Cirt after reading—and by inflating your statement of the dispute with easily falsifiable claims (pilloried on this page as well as in the outside views and response). Even those who broadly agree that Cirt is a Bad Guy™ concede that "many of the charges against Cirt are absurd", but that that's okay because Cirt is "guilty" (of what? I don't know). For many people jumping on the Cirt-hate dogpile, it seems that one's opinion of Cirt is more important than the points in this RfC/U. Quigley (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an impasse. You have enough time to post 2000 words to express your opinion, but not enough time, it seems, to read the evidence. There's nothing much to say then. If you do happen to read the sections about the State Senate elections, let me have your considered opinion whether you think the use of Wikimedia projects and main pages to promote Peralta, Dickson and Anderson was appropriate. Cheers, and no hard feelings. --JN466 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I said ever implied that I did not read your allegations regarding Peralta, Dickson, and Anderson. I did not comment on them in my own view, because I was not sufficiently involved at the time of those articles' writing to weigh all of the evidence (as opposed to your selective evidence) fairly. But my not signing your statement of the dispute did imply that I found those allegations lacking. In fact, I found your accusation that Cirt's motivation for improving those articles were the subjects' peripheral positions on Scientology as absurd a conspiracy theory as the accusation (a lead trial balloon which you did not include in your statement of the dispute, but which I included in my own summary) that Cirt improved the santorum article in 2011 because Dan Savage made a blog post critical of Scientology in 2008. The charges against Cirt are so bizarre, petty, and uninteresting that resolving the interpersonal dispute that seems to be at the heart of all this is infinitely more productive than playing six degrees of Xenu. Quigley (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait I am confused Where is that accusation on Dan Savage-Scientology link? I have reviewed the main RFCU page not seeing it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any particular connection between Santorum and Scientology. Santorum was accused once of having connections to the Moonies, and as a religious fundamentalist he would be likely to support religious fringe groups' rights in ways anti-cultists would not appreciate, but I don't think you need any of this to dislike Santorum. --JN466 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley posits above that one of your conspiracy theories is that "Cirt improved the santorum article in 2011 because Dan Savage made a blog post critical of Scientology in 2008." I am not finding that accusation made by one person here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's here, linked to in my view from the beginning. It's also on Wikipedia Review, where that trope likely originated. Quigley (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah missed that I as I was clicking through the as I was looking for a statement by Jayen466 saying that. As far I can tell Jayen466 never made or supported that accusation.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason you can't find it in this RfC/U is that it's not there. It is true that Savage does not like Scientologists, and has written about them on various occasions, and it is true that he does not like Santorum, but these are dislikes shared by millions of people. --JN466 22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at this ... (1) a noted anti-Scientology activist on an Anonymous forum says it is important to campaign against Stone (2) she says she helped Cirt to acquire photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles on Wikipedia (3) Cirt writes promotional articles, described by several editors as "advertisements", on Stone's opponents in Wikipedia, prior to the election, and places them on the main page as DYKs (Dickson in Nov. 2009, and Anderson five weeks before the election) --- and it is an absurd conspiracy theory to surmise that anti-Scientology sentiment had anything to do with Cirt's interest in these articles? And then the same thing happens again a few months later with Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate (the latter a supporter of Scientology's detoxification program for 9/11 firefighters), a flattering bio of Peralta goes on the WP main page three days before the election, and an equally flattering Wikiquote entry goes on the Wikiquote main page for the entire week before the election? With respect, it seems to me more absurd to assert that Cirt's activities were unrelated to that outside campaign. --JN466 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do about what Wikiquote chooses to feature? Did he make them choose to accept that quote? What are we supposed to do about people on Anonymous forums talking about him?

Regarding your comment about reading the evidence, sure, think it's only right for people to read over the evidence. The problem is that when the "prosecution" dumps a huge unedited torrent of charges at someone, and so many (like I said in my response) are completely unjustified, how can you expect the people responding to go over every detail with exacting care? That becomes a guilty until proven innocent standard, where it is easy to lay more charges than someone can rebut. And so fairness demands that people stop taking the trouble to go over every charge in detail, focusing only on the broader picture that every one they look at closely falls apart. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Had you read the RfC/U, you would know that Cirt placed the Peralta article on the Wikiquote main page himself. --JN466 23:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, did you just recommend that observers not read through and study the evidence presented in this RfC? Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I do have to concede that, surprisingly enough, I see the semi-protected template he added the name to really does go straight to the Wikiquote main page. Some of the vandals aren't trying hard enough. It still is not Wikipedia and thus not our concern. I don't even know if NPOV is a policy on Wikiquote, or could be. The things I discussed on the entry I made are the things that sounded most serious to me - as I say there, there were things I couldn't or wouldn't run down in full detail. Wnt (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote is obviously not our concern, except inasmuch as Cirt's actions there demonstrate the promotional pattern underlying his edits. He also placed santorum on the Wikiquote main page a few weeks back: [24]. --JN466 10:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion to Cirt

It is becoming obvious that editors commenting here are, to some extent, having difficulty coming to a consensus, and instead becoming polarized into something like opposing camps. Part of the reason for this is that the editors making the complaints have raised a large number of specific concerns, and it is difficult for those of us who have previously been uninvolved to sort through all of them, especially when there are some issues that seem to be quite serious and credible, and others that seem to be insubstantial.

Cirt, in your response you say: "While I don’t believe I’ve substantively breached these requirements, I concede that on occasion my actions have left me open to accusations of having done so." I would infer from that, that you consider most of the specific accusations against you to be factually in error, while acknowledging that there are also some areas in which you are quite willing to try to do better. However, you have not given any specifics (although other editors, of course, have done so). Would you be willing to refute, specifically, any of the accusations against you? As uninvolved editors try to work through the nearly-tl;dr accusations, it would be very helpful if you could indicate those accusations that you consider to be significantly inaccurate, as well as any that you are willing to acknowledge as valid (if any). You don't have to do that, of course, but if you do, you will increase the likelihood of an outcome that you could accept as valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Where the certifiers have unleashed this avalanche on Cirt before, he has tried to respond by addressing the factual concerns, but his pursuers seem satisfied by nothing less than an unconditional admission of wrongdoing and an imposed retirement. Quigley (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that link, and while it speaks to some of the issues raised here, it isn't really addressed to this RfC/U. Given that the link is followed by further discussion, it's not clear to me what Cirt's opinion is now. (And I am more persuaded by things like, to take an example from observations made by other editors during this RfC/U, that the increase in activity at the Santorum page followed Jon Stewart's comment, which is a claim of fact, than I am with statements along the line of I promise to abide by Wikipedia consensus, which isn't.) And I would much prefer to hear from Cirt him/herself, rather than from other editors who have already made their own views clear. An expansion, by Cirt, of Cirt's response could be very helpful. If it's merely a link to a previous refutation, that's fine, but I would like to hear it from Cirt. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would like editors to remember is that an RfC/U is not a process to seek sanctions against an editor. It is an effort to air and discuss concerns, and talk about them as adults. --JN466 22:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Partridge citation

One of the issues raised with Cirt's editing was the addition of a quote from The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: [25] In the past, I have been critical of this edit myself. However, given that other quotations given as evidence of Cirt's bad faith have turned out to be less than complete, I wanted to see the whole context of Partridge for myself, not just the extended quotation provided here and at the santorum talk page. Luckily, it turns out to be available in Google Books' preview: [26]

Jayen did quote the entirety of the relevant paragraph from Partridge. However, I fear that without the context of the entire preface to the work, the paragraph may be misconstrued when deciding how Partridge feels about santorum.

Yes, Cirt's edit is far too easily read as implying that Partridge listed santorum. However, it seems to me that it's very much a judgement call, and one's interpretation of this issue seems to be a good barometer of how much good faith one feels willing to extend to Cirt. What Cirt wrote is literally true: Partridge did, in fact, cite santorum as an example of deliberate coining—in fact, as the sole such example, which one could argue is a degree of notoriety itself. It's not possible to argue the literal truth of the statement; instead, there's disagreement over what it implies by omission, and whether that omission was deliberate.

I think it's equally possible to conclude that Cirt carefully crafted this statement as a deliberate attempt to hide Partridge's decision to omit the word from its gloss in an attempt to confer more legitimacy on it, as it is to conclude that Cirt found a mention of the word in a respected work and created a paraphrase of that work that avoided giving it undue weight, without considering that others might misconstrue it. It's almost a Rorschach test.

(I note that Partridge never said santorum was not a legitimate word; only that they had made the editorial decision not to include intentionally-coined words. The Preface notes that they included "poorly attested words" and offensive words. It also mentions hoaxes, but gives a different example; it does not consider santorum a hoax.)

Looking into this clarified in my mind one of the problems with Cirt's editing: Cirt writes very precisely and with great economy. Cirt uses language with particular meanings, and expects people to read with equal precision. Reading many of the disagreements cited in this RfC/U, I think that people more often take issue with what they thought or remembered Cirt said than what the words strictly say. That's not to say the readers are wholly at fault; a writer who is correct in the details but frequently misunderstood is still at fault for not expressing themselves clearly to their audience. This is especially true when Cirt is interacting with other editors. When tempers flare, economy of words is interpreted as hostility, and precisely-chosen words may be interpreted with less precision.

In the absence of compelling and unequivocal evidence that Cirt is intentionally out to inject misrepresentations into Wikipedia, I presume good faith. However, I agree that this edit was troublesome, because while technically correct, it did wind up misleading some readers. Had the sentence been worded "The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English noted santorum in its preface, but chose not to include it because the term was deliberately coined", there would not have been the risk of incorrect perception. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(...was deliberately coined had not gained wide usage.") They use it as an exemplar of deliberate coinage but exclude it from their alphabetical listing because it has not been widely adopted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if they included 'truthiness'? -- Avanu (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they did not exclude it solely because it hadn't been widely adopted. They excluded it because it had been deliberately coined. Compare with page ix, second column, halfway down: "If there was a question as to whether a potential entry fell within the target register, we erred on the side of inclusion. We generally chose to include poorly attested words, presenting the entry and our evidence of usage to the reader who is free to determine if a candidate passes probation." Also consider the initial statement of critera for inclusion in Partridge on that page: "We include (1) slang and unconventional English, (2) used anywhere in the English-speaking world and (3) after 1945." The editors didn't list "wide adoption" as a criterion for inclusion. In fact, they said that they'd err on the side of including words that hadn't appeared often in their version of reliable sources. Reading the entire Preface, I see that santorum was excluded not because it wasn't widely used, but because it was deliberately coined. I also get the sense that, deliberate or not, if it was widely used, it would have been included. While I still believe Cirt's edit was misleading, I do not think it was as bad a misquotation as it first appeared. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Macwhiz, I made an edit at the santorum article that I believe fairly closely parallels the wording you suggest above, and was reverted by Cirt within one minute: [27][28]. It made me think that Cirt had an investment in the previous wording, and was well aware of the subtle spin involved.

More generally speaking, I have simply seen too many instances of Cirt erring on the same side in quoting or summarising sources. There is a cumulative effect here, which I appreciate other editors cannot reproduce in their minds, but it leads me to favour one interpretation of the Rorschach plot. It's probably why I reacted to the "several", and got laughed out of court by most editors writing here. But the fact remains, "several" is defined as "more than two or three, but not [very] many" in both the Oxford English Dictionary and Websters. Moving from "two" to "several" (or just "its recipes were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004" in the article's lead) subtly inflated the good reception the book in question had received. I am sure we can all agree that writing "two of its recipes" would be more accurate and informative than writing "several" or just "its recipes were included" in this case, but I am sorry to have brought that particular point up.

For another lengthy discussion about skewed quoting, see [29], section "Remaining concerns". The article wording which the discussion was about is here. The article then was a hatchet job on an academic book on Scientology, mostly sourced to satirical magazine Private Eye. It too ran on the main page. I NPOV'd it eventually, by locating a 30-page scholarly review that hailed it as "the most sophisticated academic item published on Scientology so far", but of course by then it was no longer on the main page. I found that conversation with Cirt exasperating, and found it difficult to assume good faith—Hislop had clearly misrepresented the book by quoting out of context to support his polemics, and Cirt seemed to want very much for that mispresentation to be repeated in WP as well.

Another example was this source, summarised by Cirt as '"Gaynor worked her way through Scientology" and other movements'. Such a wording will lead at least some readers to assume she "worked her way through Scientology" (i.e. spent some extended time going through Scientology's multilayered program of courses), when in fact she only looked briefly into it, as she did with a dozen other religions. (If you can spare the time, please review the resulting BLPN discussion as well, and Cirt's argumentation in that discussion.)

It's when you see such subtle inaccuracies repeated consistently that it begins to look less like accident than design. I appreciate that you do not have that experience, and may not want to take my word for it. That's okay. But do consider that the election effort outlined below demonstrates a clear, and very strong and purposeful investment on Cirt's part in this issue, and that subtle source twisting is a rather common side-effect of such investment. Cheers, --JN466 13:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, I remember you making that edit; I also remember the discussions about whether your edit constituted original research on the talk page [30] and at OR/N [31] I agree that, given your mutual history, Cirt should not have reverted your edit. However, I note his edit comment: "That is a bit of WP:NOR interpretation from the source. best to just quote the source, itself." Okay, I've already said that Cirt's sentence was misleading and should've been improved. But your edit was obviously questionable as well; even the uninvolved folks at OR/N were split on it. If someone else had reverted your edit, I don't think we'd be debating whether or not it was a justifiable revert.

As for "several", I'll grant you that it's sloppy, I agree that it is inappropriate to describe a quantity of two, and that given my previous observation about Cirt's tendency toward precise language it does raise questions in my mind. But what I'm not seeing is why you think Cirt did this. I've seen a theory that Cirt is pushing a point of view on Scientologists, and a point of view on politicians, but I'm not seeing a nexus between either Scientology or politics and... bacon recipes. Okay, it's obvious Cirt has a positive point of view toward bacon. But... what's Cirt's motivation for supposedly fluffing this number? I mean, "Cirt has a thing about Scientologists so he writes misleading POV stuff about them" is an argument I can understand, whether or not I might agree with it. "Cirt writes misleading POV stuff about a book of bacon recipes because..." um... sorry, I just am not seeing it. What am I missing?

In the absence of a good theory with something to back it regarding Bacongate, I'm going to presume that it was a sloppy edit, and not malicious.

I'm not commenting on the rest of your comment yet, because frankly I don't have the time right now to dive as deep into them as I'd like to. Give me time, and I'll have a look.

But, the thing for me is, you say that it's Cirt's pattern over time that concerns you. If you were commenting on the pattern, that'd be one thing. But I see you commenting a lot on what you perceive to be Cirt's reasons for the pattern. I don't see a lot of actual evidence for those purported reasons. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not seeing it so far. What I am seeing is that Cirt is accused of misrepresenting sources... but the accusation itself misrepresents sources, making it very difficult to take at face value. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not seeing the wood for the trees. Cirt writes hatchet jobs for people and things he and Anonymous dislike (such as politicians taking a soft or positive line towards Scientology), and puff-pieces for those they do like (free-speech lawyers, opposing politicians etc.). Motivation is irrelevant. The articles' pronounced lack of NPOV speaks for itself.

The accusation of misrepresentation is without merit. The one essential fact on that forum page was the evidence of collaboration, not that a couple of contributors there went tinfoily when they saw an editor remove negative material from the Miscavige article, or that someone else there then reassured them that "Cirt is one of us". You have complained that the RfC/U is tl;dr, and I did not want to make it even longer by adding that extraneous detail. Cirt's press on that forum, by the way, is generally quite good. --JN466 12:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Joel Anderson article

"Cirt also completely re-wrote the article on Joel Anderson, increasing its size five-fold in a single edit"

...which is not abnormal in and of itself. I've done that. As for one edit, I hate editing articles in a browser window. I copy the code to a good text editor, work there, and copy it back.

"(thus fulfilling the criteria for a DYK main page appearance)"

The question in my mind is: Was this done to get it on the front page as a a bad-faith political campaign attempt, or as a misguided desire to rack up another DYK? We editors put a lot of bragging rights on DYKs, and they're difficult to get without puffing up an existing article. I'm not saying puffing up an article to get a DYK is right, not in the least, but it's far less dastardly than being a shadowy political hacker.

"On 28 May 2011, in response to concerns about his editing, Cirt asked other editors for an NPOV review."

Which notably glosses over the fact that it was Jayen, the submitter of this RfC/U, who raised those concerns. [32] It also fails to mention that Jayen originally complained about these things not on Wikipedia, but on Wikipedia Review. The other person commenting negatively on Cirt's editing in this thread was the co-endorser of the RfC/U, Cla68. The phrasing "concerns about his editing" implies that there was a more widespread base of dissatisfaction. Rather, Jayen at that point had already been warned for wikihounding Cirt [33] and forum-shopping his disagreements with other editors [34].

"...Cirt asked other editors for an NPOV review."

...in which, responding to Jayen and Cla68's accusations of biased editing, Cirt went to NPOV/N and asked to have the articles in question reviewed by neutral third parties, stated his commitment to no longer edit or watch those pages, and said he wouldn't object to any changes "proposed, discussed, or implemented".

While the RfC/U quotes Tomwsulcer accurately, it omits his earlier statement that Cirt's request was "way too much work", and the later statements by Tomwsulcer and Hekerui questioning why Cirt would make such an unusual request, wondering if there were edit wars or something going on. [35]

It also doesn't mention that, subsequent to these discussions, Sadads opened an ANI regarding Jayen wikihounding Cirt. [36]

"Joel Anderson is now tagged for multiple issues."

While this is true, it's highly misleading. Cirt made the supposedly objectionable edits to Joel Anderson on July 22, 2010. [37] The article remained untagged for 23 subsequent revisions [38] before being tagged by RightCowLeftCoast on May 28, 2011. [39] Of those revisions, only one was by Cirt, making straightforward and unobjectionable BLP and style changes on December 15, 2010. [40] The remaining 22 edits were by ten other editors, and it's my opinion that those edits added the need for copyediting that merited a "multiple issues" tag. The other tags, tone and too many quotations, are legitimate complaints...

But are they damning complaints? I notice that it took almost a year for anyone to tag the article after Cirt made the edits in question. I also note that, despite Jayen's impassioned critique of Cirt's edits listing what he perceives as many flaws in Cirt's edits, there's no evidence in the article's revision history that Jayen ever attempted to do anything about them. If I felt an article was an example of "promotionalism and activism", I would have applied WP:SOFIXIT. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Macwhiz, if I edited the article, I would doubtless be accused of wikihounding Cirt. Besides, minor US politicians are not a topic area I work in. What is important here is the context in which these edits occurred:

1. A noted anti-Scientology activist on an Anonymous forum says it is important to campaign against Stone.
2. She helps Cirt to acquire photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles on Wikipedia.
3. Cirt writes highly promotional articles in Wikipedia on Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson, described by several editors as "advertisements", prior to the election, and places them on the main page as DYKs (Dickson in Nov. 2009, and Anderson five weeks before the election).

Dickson and Anderson were Stone's opponents. (The reason anti-Scientologists were interested in this local election is that Gold Base, the international headquarters of the Church of Scientology, is in Riverside County. Jeff Stone had supported a ban on picketing by protesters at Gold Base, and accused Anonymous of harassing Scientologists: [41]) Anyone in Riverside County looking up these politicians in Wikipedia to form a view as to how they should vote would have found nothing on Stone, and two articles making Dickson and Anderson look extremely attractive. The same thing happened with Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate, except that Cirt actually got Peralta on the main page just three or four days before the election, and onto the Wikiquote main page for the entire six days before the election.

Of course it is not a problem if an editor increases an article's size five-fold in one edit. What is a problem is if these articles are written specifically for an election, to make a candidate look good. Cirt's expansion of Joel Anderson was on 22 April 2010, not 22 July: [42] No one else but Cirt had edited the article for half a year. Post-expansion, the article ended,

In a statement upon declaring his intention to run for California State Senate, Anderson noted, "Over the last three years I've carried major legislation. I've worked hard in a bipartisan way to solve California 's problems. We have solutions to California 's problems, but they aren't all politically correct. I want to be part of that solution."[16]

On April 6, 2010, Anderson received the endorsement of San Diego Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, who described the candidate as "a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento".[28] Anderson also received endorsements from the California Republican Assembly and from Congressman Duncan Hunter.[29] In his endorsement, Congressman Hunter called Anderson "a great conservative leader who has fought to strengthen the economy by supporting tax credits to encourage new hiring and by eliminating excessive regulations on businesses."[30]

By the time of the election on 8 June, Cirt had expanded this to

In a statement upon declaring his intention to run for California State Senate, Anderson noted, "Over the last three years I've carried major legislation. I've worked hard in a bipartisan way to solve California 's problems. We have solutions to California 's problems, but they aren't all politically correct. I want to be part of that solution."[16]

On April 6, 2010, Anderson received the endorsement of San Diego Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, who described the candidate as "a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento".[30] Anderson also received endorsements from the California Republican Assembly and from Congressman Duncan Hunter.[31] In his endorsement, Congressman Hunter called Anderson "a great conservative leader who has fought to strengthen the economy by supporting tax credits to encourage new hiring and by eliminating excessive regulations on businesses."[32] Anderson's campaign gained the support of the San Diego Deputy Sheriff’s Association in April 2010.[33] Assembly member Martin Garrick endorsed Anderson, commenting that he has the "Reagan 'can-do' attitude" appropriate for the role.[34] San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith endorsed Anderson in May 2010, and commented, "Assemblyman Joel Anderson's record in the legislature, which earned him the Legislator of the Year Award from the Deputy District Attorneys', proves that he understands that public safety should be priority number one for our state government."[35]

The Dickson article was even more positive, reflecting the outside campaign's preference for this candidate—if editors want, I can see whether we can get that article restored somewhere, on a user page, although the comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination) should give you a good idea why that article was problematic, and attracted so much discussion. Remember, these are minor political figures. They do not have a big national profile. In fact, Jeff Stone, Anderson's opponent, does not have a Wikipedia article at all, as far as I can see.

In the case of Peralta, the article was a 53-word stub before Cirt came to it: [43]. By the time Cirt had expanded it, it ran to over 1,500 words, and ended like this at the time voters went to the polls, and at the time it was on the main page, three days before the election:

---

New York State Senate candidate

"Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of."

 —U.S. Congressman Joseph Crowley

In October 2009, Peralta stated his intention to run for the New York State Senate, for a seat representing District 13. The Queens Democratic Party lended support to Peralta in his campaign for the Senate seat. An article in the The New York Times in October 2009 described Peralta as "one of the party’s rising stars". Politician Hiram Monserrate was expelled from the Senate on February 9, 2010 by a 53-8 vote of his former colleagues after being convicted of misdemeanor assault on his girlfriend Karla Giraldo. Peralta became a candidate for the March 16, 2010 special election to fill the Senate seat left vacant due to Monserrate's expulsion. United States Congressman Joseph Crowley, the chairman of the Queens Democrats, issued a statement in support of Peralta, commenting, "Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of."

The Police Benevolent Association of the New York State Troopers endorsed Peralta on February 26, 2010. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton endorsed Peralta in February 2010. On March 2, 2010, Peralta received an endorsement from New York City Council member Julissa Ferreras. Peralta received the endorsement of the Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA), due to his support for LGBT rights. Peralta also received endorsements from groups including the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, building services workers union the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) sector 32BJ, and Fight Back New York. "Peralta has a strong record of advocating for working families in the [Assembly]. Working families can count on him to be a leader in the fight for good jobs, affordable housing and an affordable state," said SEIU sector 32BJ president Mike Fishman. An editorial in The New York Times commented favorably regarding Peralta's campaign for the New York State Senate, "Elected in 2002 to the Assembly, he has a strong record of supporting immigrants and working people in the community. He has a long list of Democratic endorsements, from almost every union and public official who counts. Among the most enthusiastic are women’s groups."

---

Peralta's Wikiquote page contained the same endorsements: [44], and good soundbites from him. These elections are over now. Peralta and Anderson are in office, and it is understandable for Cirt to say he has no further interest in these articles, and no objection to others editing them as they see fit. What is relevant to this RfC/U is the clear promotional pattern of the editing, whether Cirt's actions affected the election result or not. --JN466 09:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I comment on what you say about the context of the Anderson article, I want to do more research into what the sources were saying at the time. If the available sources were making predominantly positive comments, then it would be less a BLP POV issue and more of a recentism issue. I'm not saying I disagree that the article needs work, and that it's a quote farm. I'm just not sure I reach the same conclusion about the reason for it as you do. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

One issue the article makes curiously little of is the campaign finance scandal, on which there was widespread recent coverage at the time the article was written. There was also an article in the LA Times about Anderson's mail campaign that was rather unflattering:

Los Angeles Times

• "Some California legislators pepper constituents with taxpayer-funded mailers" (May 2010)

San Diego Union:

• "Assemblyman's campaign fund transactions raising questions" (October 2009)
• "Assembly member has given back donations" (November 2009)
• "Anderson faces big fine over donations" (December 2009)
• "Anderson fined for donation violations" (December 2009)
• "Joel Anderson: How arrogant and obnoxious can you get?" (June 2010)

East County Magazine:

• "ANDERSON TO OWE $20,000 FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS" (December 2009)
• "WANT TO RUN FOR OFFICE? DEMOCRATS SEEK CANDIDATES AS FILING DEADLINES LOOM--WITH MANY TOP SEATS UNFILLED" (February 2010)
• "ETHICS, ECONOMY & EDUCATION AMONG TOP ISSUES IN 36th STATE SENATE RACE" (May 2010)
  • Quote: Asked about the ethical questions raised by his settlement agreement with the FPPC, in which [Anderson] admitted to knowledge of wrongdoing over campaign finance violations, he replied, “I take full responsibility for the mistakes that were made. At the time, I believed I was operating within the confines of the law. When it was pointed out that mistakes were made, I voluntarily returned all of the donations in question ($150,000) and paid the necessary fine ($20,000). The FPPC’s two-month review determined that there was no intentional or malicious attempt to circumvent campaign finance laws.” [Editor’s note: Actually, the FPPC settlement documents state that “Respondents at worst deliberately and at best negligently received contributions in excess of the contribution limits. Additionally, receiving the contributions through the Fresno County Republican Central Committee indicates the potential of intent to conceal the violation and the true source, amount and nature of the contribution…” http://www.fppc.ca.gov/agendas/12-09/AndersonEx.pdf )
  • For the avoidance of doubt: The "Editor's note" here, complete with pdf link, was added by the newspaper editor, not by me.
• "ANDERSON SPEAKS OUT ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE ISSUES" (May 2010)

Fresno Bee:

• "Fresno Co. GOP pays $29k fine ..."

That is by no means all. So I would not say the Joel Anderson article was "recentist". It is correctly described as a political advertisement glossing over significant, recent public scandal. --JN466 16:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Far above this was described as one of your two largest concerns, and indeed, I don't like whitewashed Wikipedia articles. But the difference is that Cirt neglected to go out and find and add these references to this article, whereas any deletionist on Wikipedia would take out all this stuff from an article about a Republican, within three minutes of someone trying to add it, day or night, night and day, until the election. There are thousands of articles guarded like that. And nobody ever seems to call them to account. They cry "BLP" and say that it doesn't matter it's published, doesn't matter if it's well known, they make up bogus policy arguments, they say consensus doesn't apply to them! Heck, the 3RR rule doesn't even apply to them, except there are enough people in their ... grouping ... to ensure it isn't needed. And then you have the nerve to come after Cirt because he left this stuff out! The inclusion of direct quotes from endorsements - or criticisms - is something that I fully support and wouldn't change in any case. Wnt (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good illustration of the way the BLP policy can be abused as a weapon against editors; if you cover scandals you can be accused of producing an attack article, while if you don't you can be accused (as in this case) of whitewashing. In both cases it comes down to bad faith being assumed from the outset, which has been a theme running throughout this RfC/U. Prioryman (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Wnt, what on earth does that have to do with this discussion? You are directly suggesting to Jayen that he is being hypocritical for "having nerve to come after Cirt ..." based on the fact that other editors, completely unrelated to him or to Cirt engage in behaviors that you find deplorable. Are you actually engaging the specifics of this case or grinding some kind of axe related to political editing, because its becoming harder and harder not to interpret your comments in that way (since they have nothing to do with Jayen, the other critics who have commented here, or Cirt).

@Prioryman. I should ask you the same thing. How does your comment about BLP apply to this situation? Have you looked at the evidence? Cirt does not fluff up political entries generally speaking, and he has not shown any general interest in doing so. Then in two separate elections where Anonymous has a specific agenda that they have made clear he puffs up the entries of two very different candidates who share one thing only in common ... that Anonymous has been clear that they want them to win. Can you all please attempt, in good faith, to treat the situation in its full context? I think it is pretty clear why Cirt selected these two entries when he did. The question is if this is OK. You can, at any time say that you don't think it is a problem to make politicians one supports look as good as possible in their entries. No one is stopping you from saying that. What I don't like though, is this constant attempt to re-frame the discussion in ways that don't apply or in order to cast aspersions at those who do not agree, and believe this is a problem. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my statement, Cirt was criticized for taking out a false claim that some porno producer sued 40,000 people when he didn't sue any, and for not including negative material sourced to the New York Daily News, which is about as tabloid as a tabloid gets. It's true that I have "some sort of axe", in that I've been told so many times how desperately (absurdly) important BLP is supposed to be, and then one day it goes on vacation. I just want everyone to be free to include anything from a reliable source about anybody, and not to be required to do it when they're not feeling like doing that research that day. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, we are neither discussing BLP nor writing an article here, we are discussing Cirt, and whether he's being even-handed or promotional. Cirt cited the NY Daily News (which, incidentally, has won ten Pulitzer Prizes), NY Magazine, the Gothamist etc. when working on Hiram Monserrate, doing everything he could to highlight significant scandal (see the edits diffed in the RfC/U). So why not for Peralta? There was significant scandal around Anderson, too, and Cirt buried it in one sentence past two-thirds of the way through a 1,500-word article, and covered up by one self-justifying quote from the subject himself. This is deftly done, mais ce n'est pas l'encyclopédie. The edit he removed from Corbin Fisher was not perfect, but it did have valid sources, which he removed as well. I understand, Wnt, that all you want to do here is poke holes, but by sniping at details you are not acknowledging the big picture: that depending on whether Cirt's for you or against you, you get puff-pieces or hatchet jobs in Wikipedia written about you, or, if you're an editor, you either get obsequious thank-you messages and flattery, or get templated and bullied at ANI. --JN466 11:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You're scoring more points with this paragraph than you have in all your other comments combined; even so, I'm not moved. I didn't know the New York Daily News had such an impressive Pulitzer record - I hope you'll raise that point the next time someone proposes automatically blacklisting all tabloid sources from BLP articles. I'd like nothing more than for us to routinely include such sources in BLPs without hesitation. And I share your desire not to have biased articles. But the thing is, I don't think Cirt can be regarded as the author of the articles he expands. They're not his articles. So I see no philosophical basis to hold him to account for covering one side of an issue better than another in his edits. I think it is perfectly fair for a Wikipedia editor to cover one side of an issue today, and the other tomorrow ... and to flake off tomorrow and go fishing instead. (not a bad idea...)

This is not an argument I'm making just for Cirt, mind you - I made the exact same argument regarding the Noleander ArbCom case. Unfortunately I was not very successful in persuading them regarding principles; however in Noleander's case there was genuine misrepresentation of sources going on, so much so that one of his articles had to be scrapped entirely because people didn't trust that the offline references had been accurately described - which to me would have been sufficient justification by itself for all sanctions applied. But ArbCom didn't go beyond a few narrow categories of bias there - rejecting anti-gay bias as a category I might add - and I think that the politics there and here are due to meet and flare up again. I just hope this time we get it right and recognize that editors make edits, and that any set of contributions that can be decomposed into individually valid source+text edits is valid and welcome altogether, without high-level analysis of overall POV. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have the time to give Jayen's citations my full attention right now, and I may not be able to do so until later this weekend, but I do promise I will look into them with an open mind. However, without reference to particulars concerning Cirt one way or the other, I gotta say Wnt makes an excellent point. I, too, have encountered a certain resistance to negative statements in BLPs. There have been times where things I thought were neutral and notable were deemed to violate BLP. This seems to be pronounced on political biographies. At first glance, it sounds like there are unflattering things to say about Anderson that I would have considered adding to provide a balanced view. I'm not yet sure if they are things I think I could've defended against those who have a narrower view of BLP. Again, in general terms I can certainly understand any editor being reluctant to add a "scandal" to a political BLP without front-page coverage on bicoastal papers of record, a flood of Google News cites, scholarly treatises on those news articles, and ideally a permission note from Jimmy Wales' mom confirming it isn't tabloidy titillating rubbish. Sometimes it seems like that's what it takes to give WP:WELLKNOWN any traction. I'll look at this specific case as soon as I can, and at first blush it does appear questionable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I looked at Jayen's arguements on the Anderson article. First off, I agree that Cirt missed the campaign-finance issue, and that's a big omission. It should be in there. I expect that adding it will involve some BLP teeth-gnashing, although probably less so long as Anderson isn't in an election cycle. So yes, I agree the behavior was highly questionable, and a point that needs to be addressed.

However, the RfC/U addresses not only behavior, but asserts motivation on Cirt's part. Yes, Anderson was mentioned on whyweprotest.net... but I quote: "I think, given Joel Anderson's tainted reputation, Dickson is the best Republican candidate to beat Jeff Stone." [45] While Xenubarb posted that message, and also the message regarding the photos, there's no context for their relationship (if any). I can't find anything to tell me whether Cirt asked Xenubarb for the photos to further the goals of Anonymous, or if Cirt asked because Anonymous's interest in the election made them a good source of local assistance. I agree it is suspicious, but it is not damning. Likewise, given Cirt's history of DYKs, that in and of itself isn't damning. But merely suspicious isn't enough to toss AGF overboard. Also, if Cirt's motivation truly was to support Anonymous's agenda, I would have expected the articles to focus on their chosen candidate, Dickson, instead of spending time spiffing up Anderson. If this were truly intentional political activism, I would also have expected there to be an article on Stone that wasn't complimentary. It is odd... but still, with no firm basis to do more than suppose motivations on Cirt's part, I'd rather focus on the behavior. It seems to me like the requested outcomes can be reached based on discussion of behavior alone. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have to put the four articles together: Dickson, Anderson, Peralta, and Monserrate. What connects them is that Anonymous

• liked Dickson (whose article was very flattering indeed; I can get you a copy),
• would have preferred Anderson (who had the most realistic chance of beating Stone) to Stone (who had taken a stand against their picketing at Gold Base),
• didn't like Monserrate, because he had praised Scientology' purification rundown and its use for 9/11 firefighters,
• liked Peralta, as Monserrate's opponent.

If you want to focus on behaviour, three of these got puff pieces and main page exposure, Stone got nothing, Monserrate was brushed up to highlight the scandal with his girlfriend, and got unflattering exposure on Wikinews (which wasn't difficult, given that he had evidently not behaved well, to put it mildly) – 7 long articles, all by Cirt. Not one of these bios was edited neutrally. Make of that what you will. --JN466 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what: I'll give you that Cirt's editing pattern with respect to these articles is consistent with a biased POV, and is difficult (if not quite impossible) to explain by an alternate theory. I've already said I've got issues with his editing. However, stipulating that Cirt's edits were POV, there's still no good proof that they were motivated by Anonymous or that Cirt was acting in league with Anonymous; he could simply independently share Anonymous's beliefs. But it seems to me that the Noleander case says we needn't consider the why of Cirt's edits if the what is clear...? If so, it might be better to avoid bringing why into it so much, as it may just confuse the issue. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro- and anti-Cirt factions

V = IR, above, you say "...if they shared the ideology that they attribute to Cirt I doubt there would be complaints" a point that is implicit in a lot of comments here and on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. As best as I can judge, I share Cirt's views on religion, politics, gender and sexuality, yet I disapprove of his behaviours outlined in this RfC. I am offended by your assumption that I couldn't be criticising Cirt purely on the basis of his bullying of opponents and NPOV/BLP transgressions.

A good case has been made on the RfC that Cirt's use of Partridge at Santorum (neologism) was misleading, that he bullies his opponents, that he creates blatant advertising for politicians and others, and misuses sources and uses dubious sources to support his obvious activism. None of my concerns about these points have been allayed, either by Cirt acknowledging them, or by others' attempts to minimise them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not any kind of expert on WP policy but it seems to me that an obvious solution here is to take away Cirt's admin privileges. That would send a strong statement of the importance of following the rules. It would also free him up to continue making positive contributions to articles without spending time on admin tasks which could just as well be done by others. BigJim707 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions like that would be punitive not preventative that a big point in our policies. No one here is reporting misuse of tools nor are RFC/U supposed to impose sanctions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't even been agreed that he's done anything wrong. You might think desysopping is an "obvious solution", but I couldn't disagree more strongly. I also resent the notion that I, or anyone else who doesn't think he did anything wrong, is "pro-Cirt". I've barely ever interacted with him in the past, and certainly not in any way that would lead me to feel any loyalty towards him. I've just read some of the background on this case and I find the behaviour of his accusers to be just as bad as any of Cirt's supposed infractions, if not worse. It's clear that this RfC is part of a larger political struggle on Wikipedia involving powerful editors with a well-earned reputation for politicking, and I would feel pretty shitty if the community enabled their machinations. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no way Cirt will be desysopped for any of this, that's another distraction. This RfC has highlighted some serious problems with Cirt's editing. The obvious solution here is for Cirt to acknowledge the political and commercial puff pieces, source misrepresentation and tendentious editing were a mistake.

Calling this just some anti-Cirt thing is a massive straw man that protects Cirt from having to confront those problems. Until he confronts them, they will persist. There may be people who see this as nothing but political but there are also people with no personal axe to grind, just sincere concern for the project, and we're being utterly sidelined by this "it's factionalism" straw man. I and others have a problem with his behaviour and he is completely ignoring us. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not there are legitimate concerns about Cirt's editing patterns, there is clearly a political component to this case, as evidenced by the near word-for-word similarity between the original complaint and SlimVirgin's email exchange with Cirt and Shell, which we would never have known about if not for the leak (that she decried heavily). Now, you can say that there are legitimate worries as well, but to say that those of us who are decrying this as a political farce are using a straw man argument is wrong on a whole host of levels. First, that is simply not what a straw man is. Nobody's setting up a straw man here. You might be thinking of red herring, but even that is false as the issue of SlimVirgin's political machinations is entirely central to the case at hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. God. I wonder how often I've misused that? Ugh. OK. I meant red herring. So, you're asserting there is such a similarity between the language used by the authors of this RfC and that used by SV in the leaked emails that she must be behind this RfC? Mmmm. That's a very strong accusation. I read the emails too and just saw pretty much what she and others have been saying online about this situation for some time. I'm open to persuasion, though. Can you give an example?

My reading of the emails was that SV assumed that Cirt's inappropriateness was so blatant that whatever arb sat in on the conversation would counsel him to desist. When Shell didn't do that, even after Cirt deceived her about being asked to write the article on the porn company by it's lawyer, SV pulled the pin. I totally understand her asking Shell to recuse herself from the running request for arbitration, when she (Shell) seemed to have seriously impaired judgment with regard to Cirt (though, Shell was never likely to comply). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the emails was that SV and Cirt were playing games with eachother and trying to get the other to say something incriminating, and that Shell was essentially having none of it. The only difference I could point to between SV's behaviour and Cirt's was that SV was being incredibly aggressive, and not backing off when a reasonable explanation was offered. She expected Shell to take her side and tell Cirt how naughty he'd been, and when she didn't do that SV quickly backed off and threatened an arbcom case. Her refusal to have Alison sit in on the convo was likely due to her lack of faith in Alison's willingness to toe the line, rather than her stated reasons. This: "Now you have added a second name without my consent, and without Shell's consent. And there's no indication that you won't continue to add names. I'm therefore withdrawing my suggestion of a private discussion between three of us, because I can see it isn't going to work. I was trying to do you a favour by discussing it privately, but you seem to have a problem seeing that." is, quite frankly, a load of horseshit. That the original claim in this RfC so closely mirrored hers, after she threatened to go to Arbcom (but couldn't, without proof of attempting to resolve the issue--with an RfC), makes it quite clear to me that this is an extension of her campaign against Cirt. Now, as I've said before, I'm not defending him. I think his claims of family health issues were suspect as well, but I'm not going to go calling him on that. At the end of the day, I wouldn't be objecting to this RfC if the emails hadn't been released, nor would I be doing so if SlimVirgin didn't have a pretty clearly-defined history of using her power, connections, and Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes to attack, vilify, and ultimately silence editors with whom she disagrees. I'm not coming to Cirt's defence, but rather opposing what I see as an abuse of process by the queen of abuses of process. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see enough difference between the language in this RfC and that used in the earlier on wiki discussions of this matter to be able to agree with you. JN and Cla seem to be their own men to me. But thanks for your clear and frank explanation of your view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOMB

I've just read the response by DracoEssentialis, and I do want to say that it caused me to think. What's bothering me about this whole thing isn't the RfC/U itself. As I've stated many times, I too see problems with Cirt's editing (though I honestly think many folks are way too upset about what I view as something minor, but I fully understand and accept that others reasonably see a big problem here). What bothers me more than anything was WP:SEOBOMB. I viewed that as an attempt to use an essay to attack a single user and I feel that was _way_ over the line. The MfD on it made it pretty clear that others viewed it in the same way. Perhaps I've missed it somewhere but I for one would really like to see an acknowledgment from Jaden466 and SV that doing so was inappropriate (or at least acknowledge that the community felt it was inappropriate and that they understand why the community feels that way) and a promise not to do something like that again.

In response to DracoEssentialis, the problem is that a number of us see those two as the bullies. Cirt seems to be the classic kind of a guy who gets picked on and doesn't stand up for himself. Witness the leaked conversation between SV and Cirt. Certainly one of those two felt like a bully to me. One constantly on the attack, the other just backing away over and over again. Jaden and SV's use of an essay to further attack Cirt can reasonably be seen as further bullying, even if that's not the actual intent. Now I probably sound like a bully--by saying that person A was attacking person B, I can be reasonably characterized as attacking person A. What I'd really like is to see everyone back away from the attacking language and work to see a fair resolution of this.

Please understand that not all of us (maybe a third?) see the problems with Cirt in as an extreme way as Jaden sees them. But almost all of us see problems (85%?). The trick is figuring out what the next step is. I view Cirt as a good admin and highly productive contributor who has been shown in this RfC/U to be too one-sided in his coverage of material. I think of that as highly correctable by Cirt. I'm willing to "wipe away" his past sins if he is willing to acknowledge the problem and sin no further. The problem that I forsee is that no one, and no article, is truly NPOV. We do our best. So any improvements he does make I worry that others, who see him in a bad light, will find something else to jump all over him about. And thus we'll end up losing Cirt as an editor: a major loss to Wikipedia even if he becomes one of the best NPOV editors around. So I personally am hoping to just have Cirt promise to A) acknowledge past issues B) stay out of controversial areas for a while and C) work hard on NPOV issues. If problems as large as the more significant of those found here continue then we have a problem. But I'd be greatly disappointed to see issues like the "Bacon" one brought up as a serious issue or a significant misrepresentation of sources.

I'll note that it's exactly the same thing (acknowledge and promise not to do it again) I'd like to see from Jaden and SV. I have a pretty deep faith in people to do what they say they will, I just really want them to acknowledge the issues and agree to work on them... Hobit (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hobit, I looked at the first version of WP:SEOBOMB the other day, and with the benefit of hindsight, and a bit more distance from events, I would not write it like that today. Cirt's name was never in it, and I re-wrote it off my own bat two days after I'd created it, after feedback at the Village Pump, to take out links to the internal discussions that would identify Cirt with a single click [46]. When other editors deleted the account of the on-wiki history altogether, I did not revert. I am happy for the essay not to refer to it.

On the other hand, to this day, we have a number of essays that refer to Essjay's actions prominently and explicitly -- among them Wikipedia:Credentials_matter, Wikipedia:Credentials_are_irrelevant, WP:HONESTY, and WP:CRED. While the Essjay scandal was an order of magnitude larger than the upset the Santorum article caused, I don't think it is the community's view that an individual editor's actions cannot be discussed or alluded to in an essay.

At the time, given the significant amount of upset the Santorum article caused, and feeling fairly upset about the whole thing -- not because of Cirt personally, but because of what the state of the article seemed to say about us as a community -- I felt that the essay was justified, to get the community to think about an important issue, to draw attention to the issue of activism, and to highlight the need to make nav template links nofollow (which I still think we should do). I did not have any other example to refer to to illustrate the issue. But I did feel sorry about the way I had written it later, and apologise to Cirt that it came across as an attack on him.

It is not my intention to drive Cirt off this project. I fully recognise his writing talent, and he has a barnstar from me for his content creation skills. At the same time, the problems with NPOV and his personal interaction style have been very distressing at times. And while I have respect for Cirt, and have said so on numerous occasions, that part of it has always been a one-way street, and I don't feel it's mutual. --JN466 00:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously I feel there was a much larger problem with the essay, and Cirt's name not being there but it being really obvious who it was about actually made it worse IMO. I think the Essjay thing was much larger and I think he was pretty much out the door by the time those were written... But then again you feel there is a much larger problem with Cirt than I do. We can debate which is the most problematic, but I don't think there is a point there. It's the joy of reasonable people having very different opinions. In any case, I get the sense we are moving forward on the issues. As I said, I do feel that there are issues with Cirt's lack of NPOV on some of the articles and I'm hopeful this RfC/U gets us to a good point. I'm still a bit unclear about what outcome is actually desired. Is a generic statement from Cirt that he's written some one-sided articles and that he'll avoid highly controversial subjects for a while (months?) and he'll work hard on NPOV enough? If not, what else is desired? Hobit (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like Cirt to make a clean breast of their actions, especially with regard to the Peralta/Monserrate and Stone/Dickson/Anderson elections, as described above, and their harassment of content opponents, as e.g. with Njsustain and THF and PelleSmith ([47][48] [49] [50][51][52][53]). I would like to see some expression of regret for having driven User:PelleSmith off this project.

If there is an acknowledgement from Cirt that this conduct was not cricket, we can all put this behind us and move on. As long as such an acknowledgement is not forthcoming, my feeling is that Cirt has not disavowed this behaviour, and that it will continue, in one way or another. --JN466 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Cirt seems to be the classic kind of a guy who gets picked on and doesn't stand up for himself." LOL Cirt is more than capable of defending himself when he feels like it or when none else will. Cirt is often just as content to disengage and let other people fight his battles for him. As for what I'd like to see your points of A,B, and C at the least Ideally I would like to see what Jayen466 just outlined and the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt#Desired outcome|Desired outcome as outlined in the of the RFC/U]]. People keep assuming on this talk page we want Cirt banned or that we are coming for him like the nazis did for the jews. We have stated our desires of out comes from the start of this and those desires have not changed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I want to express my strong appreciation for what Jayen said above, about looking back on how the essay started. I think that is a very generous and impressive thing to say, the kind of thing I see all too rarely on Wikipedia. Thank you.

I'm still trying to figure out where, overall, I come down with respect to this RfC/U, but something Hobit said rings very true to me. I had watched the discussion about the e-mails on Shell Kinney's talk page, and wondered what those e-mails really contained. Now that they have been leaked (a bad thing, but it's done), I've been able to read them and decide for myself. What really stands out for me is the aggressively prosecutorial tone of what SV said to Cirt, not reciprocated by Cirt (as well as the imputation of side-taking against Shell and Allison when there was zero evidence of that side-taking). That prosecutorial tone was exactly like what was directed against me when I was a new editor, and falsely accused of being someone else's sock. I'm not saying that any of that gets Cirt off the hook, but it does give me reason to look skeptically at some of the "evidence". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with any of this "sin no more" stuff. I don't see Cirt as having done anything significantly wrong; the worst thing he has done is to say he would disengage, which only emboldened his opponents and dragged out more arguments. To me it looks like editors under a topic ban are inevitably on their way out, doomed by opponents who scrutinize every little detail and find something that they say strayed from the path - opponents with much less skill at games than some of the work I've seen here. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Cirt was under any topic bans. I'm sure JN466 would have mentioned it if he had been. As for the evidence, I think it's plain that a lot of it has been trumped up or grossly exaggerated. Personally, if I was Cirt, I'd choose to ignore JN466's demands, which have a distinct "have you stopped beating your wife" air about them, and get on with improving Wikipedia. If you compare JN466's contributions and Cirt's contributions lately, there's not much doubt about which of them is making the more valuable contribution to this project. Perhaps JN466 should use his time for more useful purposes than continually going after Cirt? Prioryman (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not. Following an AE thread, he was advised that a discretionary topic ban was contemplated, and said he would reduce his involvement in the topic area, restricting himself to looking after existing FA and GA articles.

Prioryman, I trust that by saying what you are, you are not defending the editing around the Peralta and Anderson elections. --JN466 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know what to believe. I do know that you have clearly exaggerated and misrepresented many aspects of your evidence like selectively quoting the Anonymous forum comments, you have omitted crucial facts like the Santorum edits clearly being linked to the topic being promoted on Jon Stewart's show, and you have dragged up utterly trivial things (bacon??) in what looks like a throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks approach. I also gather that you have been pursuing Cirt literally for years, which strikes me as an unhealthy obsession. And I have the evidence of my own eyes, notably seeing Cirt being bullied and threatened into removing his already-approved DYKs, which is how I learned of this matter in the first place. Many DYK regulars, not just myself, were disgusted by what we saw then.

Cirt is clearly one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors (as someone else pointed out, 12 FAs, 87 GAs and 152 DYKs over something like 150,000 edits) so any mistakes should be seen in that context. It would be a miracle if he hadn't made any errors in that time. However, I very much get the feeling that you have latched on to the Santorum controversy to advance your own long-running campaign against Cirt, and have recruited many of the partisans in that dispute (via the link to this RfC/U that you "helpfully" posted to the Santorum talk page). Given all of that, I am not inclined to take what you say at face value. There is too much of an air of vendetta and vindictiveness about this RfC/U. Certainly Cirt should review what people have said, but I don't think he has any obligation to bow to your demands. Prioryman (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I think the reason SlimVirgin was so persistent was because Cirt, at different times, told two different stories about how he came to write the Corbin Fisher article. Cirt seemed to have forgotten that he had told SlimVirgin a while back that Corbin Fisher's counsel Marc Randazza had written to him, suggesting he write an article on Corbin Fisher, which Cirt then did. The result was a very promotional article indeed (see comments by DGG, who is a very experienced and respected Wikipedian).

When I recently raised a concern about the Corbin Fisher article's tone on Cirt's talk page, Cirt said to me he had come by it "organically", through his interest in other articles. Now that obviously did not tally with what he had told SlimVirgin before. So she contacted him privately. If you read through the conversation, Cirt then told her basically the same thing he had told me, until she reminded him that she already knew that he wrote the article because Marc Randazza had suggested it to him.

It's only at that point that Cirt owned up again to the fact that he wrote article in response to a suggestion by Marc Randazza -- Marc Randazza being someone on whom Cirt had written half a dozen articles on Wikinews, and whom he had interviewed for Wikinews.

If you look at Cirt's response to me, and the extent to which it refers to the Peralta/Monserrate and Dickson/Anderson/Stone articles, there was also no reference to everything detailed above -- the fact that Monserrate had commented positively on a Scientology program, and that Jeff Stone had attracted the ire of Anonymous by taking a stand against their picketing at Gold Base, and that Anonymous therefore very much did not want these candidates to be re-elected.

So there is an unpleasant pattern here of Cirt being economical with the truth, and only telling the whole truth after being confronted by someone who already knows it. I find it extremely troubling, because it makes it difficult or impossible to take Cirt at his word. If it had not been for the arbcom leaks, or for SlimVirgin's prior knowledge of Marc Randazza's mail to Cirt, this would never have come to light. It raises questions about what else we may not know that Cirt isn't prepared to admit, and which other individuals or organisations have asked him to edit Wikipedia on their behalf.

None of this would have been a problem if the articles concerned -- Corbin Fisher, and the articles on the four politicians -- had not been slanted in such an obvious way. --JN466 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a generous interpretation of SV's motives. A far more likely explanation, and a much more defensible one given SV's past actions towards editors she has been in a content dispute with, is that she is using Wikipedia's enforcement mechanisms to ensure the articles in question reflect her views by silencing those who oppose her and branding them as disruptive editors. To be clear, I can't recall ever interacting with SV directly, and I believe any interaction I had with Cirt would have been only indirect through 4chan-related articles. I have no personal grudge against SV, but I do strongly dislike her MO on Wikipedia. I wouldn't have given this RfC/U a second glance if I hadn't immediately noticed the striking similarities between the accusations made by yourself and your co-filers, and those made by SV in her email exchange with Cirt and Shell. Knowing SV's history on Wikipedia, I would have had to have stretched AGF past its breaking point to believe that this RfC did not arise directly from her failure to get what she wanted in that email exchange. Does that make Cirt innocent? Not in the slightest. It does, however, make me totally unwilling to play along with what appear to me to be clear ulterior motives behind this RfC. Now, if the community finds that Cirt has indeed overstepped his bounds, and that he is deserving of some sort of editing restriction, then I'll not oppose that. I will not, however, be a party to an attempt by one of the most powerful, well-connected, and arguably unscrupulous people on Wikipedia to throw her weight around. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayen: I'm keeping an open mind, and I intend to look for myself at things like the differing versions to which you refer. But I am speaking from personal experience when I refer to my personal experience. Since that time, I've been able to work much better with Slim, and I respect her editing abilities, but I've seen that tone of interaction firsthand, and I can't see how that e-mail discussion needed to take the form that it did. If—based on what you say, I don't know myself—Cirt was being evasive, all that needed to happen would be to let that happen and present the concerns on-Wiki. I don't know what good could have been accomplished by engaging in an off-Wiki interaction of that form. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has the personal integrity not to reveal on-wiki what was disclosed to her in confidence in a private e-mail. So confronting Cirt on-wiki about the discrepancy was not an option for her. Her hands were tied. --JN466 00:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, her attitude during the confrontation isn't supported by the community—and the community has made that clear. Regardless of what Cirt did or did not do, SlimVirgin isn't his prosecutor. Granted, she's performing a role that the majority of the inactive, absentee administrator core won't touch, and for that I thank her, but it isn't her role to go it alone. The fact is, many of us have been on the receiving end of these kinds of questions, not just Cirt. I agree with Tryptofish on this matter, and suggest that this needs to be done on-wiki, not off. I don't agree that her hands were tied. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:14 leaked email from SV to Cirt, she says "...you told me once that someone associated with Corbin Fisher asked you to write that article, though not for money. That is why I asked for this private exchange, with a third party to witness it. I don't want to cause you harm, or add to public drama, but there is clearly a serious issue here." If he told her this off-wiki, wouldn't it have been inappropriate for her to confront him with it on-wiki? I'm still learning the niceties of cyberspace. (For that matter, if it's inappropriate for me to paste these quotes, please delete this.) If he'd told her on-wiki, the only explanation for SV taking it off-wiki, that I can think of, is as stated: to avoid harm to Cirt's reputation and minimise drama. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, that doesn't add up for me. If the goal was "to avoid harm to Cirt's reputation and minimise drama", why was it so immediately followed by what happened on Shell's talkpage? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the big deal about writing an article because someone suggested it? We allow paid editing, apparently, so how is unpaid editing a violation of policy?   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Focusing on presumed motivation is pointless. SV was concerned Cirt was avoiding mentioning that the company's lawyer had suggested he write the article. I can understand Cirt not volunteering that, given the existing speculation around his motives. I read nothing suspicious into that at all. In his place, if my hands were clean, as I presume his were, I wouldn't feed the frenzy. The problem was the article, and an experienced editor producing such a puff piece is a problem, not any presumed motivation behind creating it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

DracoEssentialis' post

I have seen many extraordinary things on Wikipedia in the past seven years. But I have never seen anything like this posting by DracoEssentialis, who calls herself "the long-suffering wife" of Jayen466, who describes how he obsessively "spent hours and hours" collating evidence against Cirt, who tells us that he is not a bully because Cirt is a bigger bully, who attacks editors as belonging to "Cirt's faction" by calling them "flying monkeys", who shows us her deep respect for BLPs by referring to "Rick Sanitarium", and who concludes by telling us how exciting their sex life is. This really "jumps the shark", as the saying goes. I really don't care a bit what Jayen466 and DracoEssentialis do between the sheets, though I'm glad for the both of them that Jayen466 has a supportive spouse who appreciates his bedroom acrobatics. But overall DracoEssentialis's posting is bizarre and does not offer anything constructive. I'm astonished that editors in good standing have endorsed her emotional appeal on his behalf. I haven't posted a view yet, but I think it's time to review the behavior of Jayen466, Cla466, and the other supporters of cults and new religious movements who've been involved in this.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. So that's all this is: scientologists picking on Cirt. And there's me thinking it was about writing tendentiously and bullying people. Cirt has something to answer here. I am sick of this bull shit about the dark forces conspiring against your white knight. Can't you just address the argument about his occasional bad behaviour instead of constantly flinging ad hominems at the drafters of this RfC? I'm pretty sure I mean "ad hominem." :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Flinging ad hominems"? Is that what "flying monkeys" do? And no, I don't think this is about Scientologists. But there is a clear connection between the anti-"Cirt faction" and Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), Twelve Tribes communities, est/Landmark Education, Transcendental Meditation movement, etc. Jayen466's animosity toward Cirt didn't start with "Santorum (neologism)". It looks like it started four years ago with Cirt's article about the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. This is just the latest excuse for Jayen to come after him. Maybe Jayen's wife doesn't know how much of a hardon he's had for Cirt all of these years.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur with the characterization of DE's post, which also struck me as odd. The endorsement of same by otherwise well-respected editors is disturbing. I can't speak to JN or the others, but through my limited interactions with Cla68 and what I've read of his involvement elsewhere, I've found him to be generally principled and reasonable. It's disheartening, therefore, to see him put his name on what would in any other circumstances be dismissed as a bizarre rant. I wouldn't characterize any of the filers or heavy supporters of this RfC as "cult supporters" (having seen no evidence to suggest such), but I am concerned that they would be so willing to supports such a strange post for no apparent reason other than that its author agreed with them. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Ad hominems. Look at you. Look at how you're dealing with this. In fact re-read what you've just posted. Pure ad hominem. I know this goes back some time. Of course it does. Cirt has been doing this a long time. And editors like you have been smearing those who disapprove of Cirt's puff pieces and activism a long time. Address the arguments, not the man. Cirt has been shown to have behaved badly on occasion. Your response is to say, oh well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Not relevant. Sorry. At least you're not impressing the genuinely independent editors here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. " This isn't a case where we can say, "it isn't about Jayen of Cla68, it's just about Cirt". No, it's about all involved editors. Their behavior is equally relevant. We can't evaluate Jayen's accusations without also looking at the history of their dispute.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. If you see inappropriate behaviour, bring it up and we'll deal with it. There is nothing inappropriate about drawing attention to poor behaviour. What I'm saying is the "defenders of Cirt" are simply not countering the claims of obvious activism and bullying with anything but "we don't have to address this because those who are criticising Cirt hate Cirt," without showing any actual bad behaviour on their part. It is not bad behaviour to point out bad behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, for my part I don't see myself as a "defender of Cirt" so much as a defender of principle. The allegations raised in the RfC/U are serious. They're so serious I have difficulty believing that a "sorry about that, I won't do it again" is the goal, nor that it would suffice to drop the issue for once and for all. Whether it was Cirt or anyone else, if I saw an RfC/U that didn't appear to be good faith, and that made various misrepresentations, I would question it. I think "activism" and "bullying" are words that ascribe motives to actions. They're inherently accusatory. I know some have strong suspicions about Cirt's motives, and I understand their reasons, but I don't see any proof of Cirt's motives. Lacking that, aren't we supposed to assume good faith? So, if there's more than one explanation, neither with actual proof, assume the more benign one. I'm not seeing so much of that. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

An RfC/U cannot impose sanctions. My wish would just be for Cirt to make a clean breast of things. It is clear to anyone with a little knowledge of Scientology affairs why Cirt edited the Peralta, Dickson, Anderson and Monserrate articles the way he did, or why Sharron Angle's BLP looked like this when Cirt was done with it – 90% of its content about Scientology allegations. It was a huge coatrack. Cirt has been an admin for many years. He knows WP:BLPSPS. Yet he dropped this video in, because warning people about the school was more important to him than following policy, which he didn't want to be bound by. To an extent it paid off; the video was in there for months before someone noticed. But it is still a policy violation; the place for that video is Youtube, not WP mainspace. It doesn't do for Cirt to assert he hasn't substantially breached policy – that he merely laid himself open to "accusations" of having done so – because that shifts the onus back on the observer, when the policy violation is unambiguous. He could only defend his action under WP:IAR, which would not get very far at BLP/N.

One way or another, it would help for Cirt to make a clean breast of things: because then the matter is over, trust is restored that there won't be any repeats, and we can move forward. Slipperiness and sidestepping don't build that trust. --JN466 02:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Macwhiz, dragging an opponent through multiple forums and asking a specific admin to intervene is bullying. That Cirt is an activist is obvious. None of this relies on speculation about motive. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"dragging an opponent through multiple forums...is bullying". What's the different between that and normal dispute resolution?   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hand picking an administrator to intervene was the key element. (I think Cirt actually acknowledged that.) But yes. A lot of the drama at the notice boards is somebody bullying somebody. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the other editors here have done much the same thing. If using noticeboards is bullying then there's a lot of that going around.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of the comments made throughout the RfC/U can genuinely be considered as alarming (including some remarks above and further up on this talk page, as well as the titling of this very section). Unfortunately, given that this partially due to the fact that this misbehavior is occurring on both "sides", I'm not sure what you hope will be accomplished though. There are some people (including, but not limited to, SlimVirgin) who has loudly made a fuss about RfC/Us having no need to be "clerked" (which is the term apparently assigned to formatting views and endorsements in line with what's already stipulated in the instruction pages). If something like that is meeting such stiff opposition, it's impossible to expect behavior or commentary to be brought into order. The RfC/U process cannot function smoothly in these sorts of circumstances, though really, the fact that it does not seem to occur so often in other RfC/Us does reflect more on the users involved - that is, their willingness to: compromise, show each other a basic level respect, abide by the standard practice/procedure of RfC/U, and to avoid unnecessary escalation (that is, actually focus on trying to resolve those differences). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a more fundamental problem is that RfC/Us, and certainly this one, seem to be structured essentially as indictments. I don't see an effort to "resolve differences" - I see an effort to indict and convict Cirt, presumably as a prelude to an arbitration case. We shouldn't be surprised at participants in an RfC/U confronting each other if the RfC/U itself is written and structured in a confrontational way. It's not exactly an invitation to resolve differences amicably. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to agree about the concern that RfC/Us which are written and structured in a confrontational way are unlikely to be considered as an invitation to resolve differences amicably. The fundamental assumption to an RfC/U having a chance to work is that editors actually want to resolve their differences, and are willing to try their absolute best at doing so voluntarily (without the involuntary binding measures which would be the result of arbitration case). RfC/Us have worked in the past - though this may not happen too often, it certainly does indicate that it can work if all parties/participants put their mind to it. But where parties are not sufficiently interested in doing so, or have another agenda, then that's a problem. I'm not sure whether parties can be forced to try to genuinely resolve their differences, or what it will take to persuade those parties to use DR for resolution (rather than escalation). Maybe there are some suggestions out there which can work in practice? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cirt is welcome to join in and resolve differences. He has chosen not to do that, and "the defenders of Cirt" are doing a terrible job on his behalf. He could shut this down by engaging with those who see problems with his behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think you're missing the point Anthonyhcole, in the same way that Will Beback might have missed the point. What someone has just pointed out is that "the attackers/prosecutors of Cirt" are doing a terrible job of convincing others that they actually want to resolve the differences (that instead, this is just a formality for the purposes of an arbitration case). Now you appear to be expressing a concern that Cirt and "the defenders of Cirt" is not here to resolve differences about problems you see with his behavior. So it's apparent that both "sides" have concerns.
• I think that the rhetoric and commentary on both sides is not conducive to a resolution, so steps need to be taken by both parties ("sides") to address the issue. This is both a request in the present, and a caution to avoid what happens in the future. Obviously, I can't force anyone to heed that...but if that's not going to happen, or no actual resolution is expected or desired, one does have to wonder how much more/less is going to achieved by keeping this RfC/U open. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• As far as Cirt is concerned, I don't think any follow-up action is necessary at this time. Cirt has acknowledged the RfC. I look forward to his producing some excellent articles in the future on the topic of his choosing. Cla68 (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cla68, are you referring to Cirt's early statement that his personal life won't permit him to respond? Or have I missed something? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Assuming you're referring to this statement, he does not recognise that he has breached any of the items listed in the required outcomes, but concedes his actions have left him open to accusations of having done so, and he'll restrict the areas he edits in. Since he has no apparent insight into the behaviours criticised in this RfC, we can expect him to continue to bully his opponents and churn out puff pieces for commercial and political interests. Great.

  Still, this RfC has had the effect of sharply defining the problematic behaviours, and presumably Cirt has understood what was said and, though he doesn't appear to recognise them in himself, or, if he does, doesn't think them a problem, at least he's been told very publicly what a large number of people think. And maybe he does see some flaws in his approach but just doesn't want to acknowledge it publicly. Perhaps it is time to move on and see if there's a behaviour change. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's no surprise to me that some sectors of Wikipedia have become like an online version of Big Brother. Count Iblis (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be indicating Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) at this point I would argue it is Big Brother (TV series) instead. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Big Brother House. And Cirt has not been voted out :) .Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see Cirt as a bully when he seems to be spending so much time rolled up in a ball getting kicked. But I had a policy question: does WP:Meatpuppet have any bearing on whether her views are to be considered? Wnt (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, the same thought had occurred to me. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the connection is declared, both on our user pages and explicitly in the statement. So everyone can take it for what it is. Did you have time to review the Anderson sources, Macwhiz? Because while this is all good fun, we actually convened here to discuss concerns over non-neutral editing. --JN466 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have; see above. What with the holiday weekend, not so much of my time is allocated to Wikipedia just now... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied above. Cheers, --JN466 21:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Will, anyone who is married would find nothing bizarre about a spouse seeing their husband/wife in this position and wanting to stick up for them. Wnt, the notion that this has anything to do with meatpuppetry is yet another annoying bad faith distraction. The two of them are married and the one stuck up for the other in a very public manner. What the heck does that have to do with WP:MEAT? Then the rest of you lot questioning why editors of good standing would endorse a comment by a wife sticking up for her husband ... I have to AGF here and assume that you're all hopelessly single and don't understand why someone would do that. If you were willing to AGF regarding the comment you might consider the notion that whether or not you agree with him Jayen is acting in good faith here and his wife, who knows this better than anyone else, wants to make sure that is understood. That's the thing that comes through to me clear as day. I guess admitting that makes me some kind of idiot though right? Anthony has said it well elsewhere. The ad hominems are very disappointing indeed.Griswaldo (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling editors "flying monkeys" is about the worst ad hominen I've seen here.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you click on the link I provided? I was quoting Dan Savage with my tongue firmly in my cheek :-) --DracoEssentialis (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the link modifies your comments. The fact remains that you have called the "Cirt faction" "flying monkeys". If it was not your intention to attack editors as flying monkeys then please redact your post.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see it as an attack. It was a humorous reference to Savage and his campaign. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• It’s not just the fact that Cirt’s Flying Monkeys consider themselves qualified to comment without having read all the evidence my husband spent hours and hours collating, it’s the way they twist the facts to make them fit in with their worldview. [..] Oh, and for what it’s worth, JN466 may be many things to the Cirt faction, but as a person intimately familiar with the workings of his heart and mind, I can assure you that he did not start this RFC because he had ‘an axe to grind’ with Cirt.

No, she wasn't talking about Savage. She was saying that about Wikipedia editors who "twist the facts" and who haven't read all of Jayen's evidence. The tone of her comment does not seem humorous, it seems like an attack on those who disagree with Jayen. She even ridiculed the medical problems of Cirt's relatives. If that's humor it's very mean-spirited.   Will Beback  talk  09:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Will? It was Savage who wrote, "I'm going to have to sic my flying monkeys on him". That's who DracoEssentialis was referring to when she said "Cirt’s Flying Monkeys consider themselves qualified to comment without having read all the evidence". It was supposed to be funny, and it was. I can't comment on Cirt's relatives and their medical problems, but other editors did say that they found it strange that Cirt was editing the entire time he said he was busy dealing with it. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you saying that DracoEssentialis was saying that the "Cirt faction" here are the same people to whom Dan Savage was referring when he spoke of his "flying monkeys"? More generally, are personal attacks OK if some people find them funny?   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did she ridicule anyone's medical problems? Will is there any reason why you may not be able to judge people's criticism of Cirt rationally? Ironically given your distaste for Draco's involvement in this RFC as a reaction to what is happening to her husband, you appear to be having a very emotional reaction to criticism of Cirt. I am asking this question in good faith and have assumed nothing but I do wonder why this is. I would suggest that if you are having a hard time emotionally with all this that you step back and take a breath before commenting. The RFC could run for as long as 30 days (apparently) so there is no rush to comment in the heat of anger, or whatnot. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• And isn’t it ‘interesting’ that a person so adept at hounding his critics on their respective talk pages/taking them to ANI is too beset by ‘family tragedies’ or rather too busy making hundreds of edits per day to his next pet projects to speak up for himself when he’s finally called out on _some_ of his actions?

I don't see how that could be read in any other way than as asserting that Cirt lied about the medical problems his family members were experiencing.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A neologism everyone can support

Anyone notice that DracoEssentialis has accidentally referred to this affair as a "cirtcus"? I think we can all agree on that at least... ;-) Prioryman (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that spelling was quite intentional. ;) --JN466 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. So, in your view, derogatory nicknames like "cirtcus" and "Rick Sanitarium" are acceptable or even amusing when referring to WP editors and other living people.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If _my_ comments offended you, where was your sense of moral outrage when my husband and all the folks who supported him and Cla68 were compared to the Nazis on June 29 (“First they came …”) by several editors on this page? Are you aware that your history of turning up whenever there is any JN-bashing to be done could well be considered bullying? You have gone to great lengths to prove my point. Thank you for that. --DracoEssentialis (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like me to list the history of Jayen466 turning up at articles where Cirt or I are working then I think you'll find you're mistaken about who is the aggressor. And for the record, this RFC was not started to bash JN. Just the opposite.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the odds of you trying to change the mind of Jayen's wife are, oh, less than zero. Seriously dude, pick your battles. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Which may say something about the value of spouses adding letters of recommendation to RFCs or otherwise participating.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I supported it. Omnia vincit amor. Please remember why we are here: philosophia. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Above, DracoEssentialis seems to say that I have no right to complain about her personal attacks since I didn't condemn a posting on this page which cites First they came..., which she says was tantamount to comparing Jayen466 and Cla68 to the Nazis. I think I've seen that used in many talk pages on Wikipedia. In fact, Viriditas used it to oppose a ban on a disruptive editor: This is an extremely dangerous precedent. I disapprove with what Kurt says, but I will defend his right to say it within acceptable guidelines. [..] First they came... Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[54] Viriditas, is it true that citing this saying is grave personal attack?   Will Beback  talk  11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, I was subsequently excoriated for using that phrase and the thread was shut down by Newyorkbrad. In hindsight, I shouldn't have used it. Will, you may not be aware of this, but it is generally poor form to cherry pick quotes from old, off-topic discussion threads from three years ago. At least try to stick to the current discussion. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks are cherry-picking things Cirt did from quite a while ago. What is the statute of limitations around here? As for "First they came..." - I actually was searching for some instances in which someone used it in reference to an enforcement action I was involved in. Your comment came up first. That phrase is still commonly trotted out to condemn enforcement actions. If it really is a heinous personal attack then we should let people know generally. More generally, DracoEssentialis's assertion falls into the category of "you didn't complain about X so you can't complain abut Y". I had nothing to do with the "First they came..." posting, so I don't see why she'd raise it here in her defense.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You have gone to great lengths to prove my point - if you believed that, you wouldn't need to keep saying it. What you're actually doing is repeating an untruth in the hope that people might eventually believe it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it horrible when people "keep [on] saying" things once? I would ask you William on what knowledge you base your bad faith accusation of lying (i.e. repeating untruths), but it is clear that a much more basic question should be asked. Have you actually followed the RFC and the discussion on this page because it appears you haven't. If you haven't please refrain from accusing people of lying. This is the second time someone has done this. I'm still waiting for a response from Raul about his smear.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen it before. But you're right: it seems to be the first time. That doesn't make it any more accurate, though. I deliberately said "untruth" because it was less emotive than lying; I note your attempt to ratchet up the emotion-level but I think that is unwise William M. Connolley (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You show up to make accusations of lying, and do so in a manner that isn't even accurate, and then you accuse the person saying that your bullshit stinks of "ratchet[ing] up the emotion-level?" When you drive by, throwing matches out your window you don't get to get upset when people yell "fire." You want to keep digging this hole William? Be my guest.Griswaldo (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I carefully avoided use of the word lying. You're just trolling now, and yes I did say that deliberately William M. Connolley (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The irony in your comment is so thick we could spread it on toast. Usually the person who bites the lure isn't the one doing the trolling William. Yes you didn't use the word lying, but as Shakespeare once wrote, "stinkweed by any other name would smell as noxious." Cheers mate.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Pro-Osho POV

• - In reply to Will, an experienced editor such as User:Cirt that repeatedly violates policy and has a lot of supporters of his edits needs a lot of investigative detail to file a report. Jayen is to be thanked for having the courage and care for the Wikipedia projects neutrality to bring User:Cirt's editng issues to the community and for laying them all out in one location for reference now and in the future should User:Cirt repeat any of the problematic behavior. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he's been working this for four years. And he's got his fellow OSHO disciple to support him and watch his back. Is it incorrect that the two of you have both been followers of a small Indian religious movement, one which Cirt has written about?   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It says so on my user page. So what? Does it justify making 90% of the article about Sharron Angle a quote farm on Scientology, for example? --JN466 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing Off2riorob.

As for Jayen, would you say that your relationship with Cirt was entirely friendly up to 2010-05-28, the date of the edit you've linked to? Is that when you realized he was a bad editor? Or did that happen earlier?   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, you haven't signed any of the sections in the RfC. Do you agree with any of the statements or opinions expressed in this RfC? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nobody's follower and never have been. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You have never been involved in the Osho movement? Your early editing was devoted exclusively to that topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No - I am an independent person, I have interests in many things. I am here commenting because I have tired of seeing user:Cirt violate policy. Policy violations on multiple levels - uploading videos - signing them off on his OTRS account and adding them to BLP articles - these two violations for an experienced admin are prime examples of User:Cirt's editing problems that I am here to comment on - have a good look at the real issue here - Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My relationship with Cirt has been up and down over the years; at times collegial, at other times oppositional. He has done some superb work, which I have very much admired. The same goes for you, by the way. But both of you have similar problems – getting overinvolved, and overeager to portray ideological opponents in a bad light, without any sense of when to stop. This article version is a disgrace. 90% of a politician's bio about alleged Scientology links! Cirt's versions of the Jose Peralta, Joel Anderson, Hiram Monserrate and Kenneth Dickson articles were a disgrace, and a discredit to this project. As was Corbin Fisher. They were so over the top it was a joke. Dropping a self-published YouTube videos recounting hearsay of sexual abuse allegations in an article is a disgrace. Harassing people like THF, Njsustain and PelleSmith in defence of such work is a disgrace. I could go on. I thought Cirt had turned a corner about half a year ago, when he made some edits to the Xenu article, and wrote an article, Church of Scientology editing of Wikipedia, with whose neutrality I was genuinely impressed. That was evenhanded work. I thought the old Cirt had gone for good, and I was glad and pleased for him that he seemed to have gotten whatever it was out of his system. But the santorum article sent a clear message that his persecutory instincts were alive and well, and that we were back to square one. --JN466 00:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• On 4 November 2009, Cirt embedded a non-notable, self-published YouTube video making allegations about third parties in the article, in violation of WP:BLPSPS. (Removed by User:Off2riorob on 10 April 2010 after RS/N thread.)

Article concerned: Aaron Saxton

• On 23 March 2010, Cirt embedded a non-notable, self-published YouTube video making allegations about third parties in the article, in violation of WP:BLPSPS. (Removed by User:Off2riorob on 31 March 2011, after BLPN thread.)

Article concerned: List of Scientologists- Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but please let's talk about the history of your interactions with Cirt. Back in 2009, you wrote of an article Cirt had written, 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot: "this article could have been written by the kind of person that at the time was gettin his gun to go shoot some rajneeshees..." [55] Is it incorrect to conclude that your negative view of Cirt is connected to his editing of Rajneesh/Osho-related articles, and dates back to 2009 or 2008?   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This RFC is not about me or my interactions with Cirt. Its about User:Cirt's repeated policy violations. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC can cover the behavior of all involved persons. You wrote:

• Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC))[56]

Did you know Osho personally?   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Those incidents with the videos seem over the top. Isn't that whole area subject to sanctions? Hopefully there's more to it than is immediately visible. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom. There is nothing else to see in that situation - the two of those uploads and insertions are as bad policy violations as they look. Uploaded from utube by User:Cirt - Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know myself, never mind somebody else. The question is quite unrelated to the case and the policy violating diffs as laid out on the RFC page. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously ducking the question. The issue of the Osho editors and their relationship with Cirt is central to this RFC.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you wrote this three years ago:

• oh hello cirt again..are you following me around ? I can do nothing without you appearing as if by magic! I shall take it as a mark of respect that you consider me worthy of tracking (Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC))[57]

It appears that your relationship with Cirt predates the edits you're complaining about here. Is it incorrect to conclude that your negative views of Cirt date back several years?   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• As I said, I am only interested in the User:Cirt's policy violations as laid out in this RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously incorrect. Your interest in his editing clearly predates the issues talked about in this RFC, and clearly stem from his editing of Osho-related articles. This is a topic in which both you and Jayen466 have been strongly involved, from a pro-Osho POV. That makes your ongoing criticism of him appear to be due to animus rather than an impartial concern about Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to refuse to reply to you until you comply with my request on your talkpage to please also supply the diff to the comment when you quote me. As I understand it compliance with such a request is common practice. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

They're all time-stamped.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you, I really appreciate you posting the diffs as well when you post my quotes, especially when you post only part of a comment and not the whole. thanksOff2riorob (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue: it appears that you had a negative view of Cirt dating back to your earliest edits here, when you were editing Osho-related articles almost exclusively. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  11:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already said, I stumbled into wikipedia seeing what was bias in an article and rode in in my charger with the intension of correcting it all. User:Cirt was the main contributor in that area and it didn't go well for me. I was banging around like some newbies do and I didn't understand policy. I moved on and lost interest in that topic and I left it behind a couple of years ago. Since then I had had some positive and some not so positive meetings with User:Cirt - I have at times supported them and at times been in opposition to their edits. I have not got a negative view of User:Cirt. My issues are in the diffs laid out on the RFC page, they are not historic. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another post by Off2riorob which indicates he is has extraordinary knowledge of Osho:

• I could resesrch the details for this.. I think he first went to uraguay and was allowed permission to stay with the president saying (as I recall) nice things about Osho.. and he gave some talks there called the transmission of the lamp . I would need to reference these details this is just a rough idea. Then as I recall the American government stepped in to coerce Uruguay to take away his permit to stay and they bowed under the pressure of having there loans recalled and threw him out.. then he was in Greece also granted a tourist visa, after he soon started talking and calling the priests fools he was again thrown out . [Ireland] was also a place that allowed him to stay ,I think he was there with a few friends for four weeks were he stayed in a small bed and breakfast in limerick as I recall where I imagine they appreciated his joke telling and then finally I think he flew to Nepal where he was allowed to stay and talk ..where a property was also looked for until the best option was finally India and a deal was done with the Indians to settle the old tax bill and he was allowed to return to Poona. It wasn't that he pass actually deported from 21 countries .. I think the only country that refused him entry on his arrival was the UK., the rest was just nespaper speculation and national posturing from goverments. [..] (Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)) [58]

Without doing research, Off2riorob knows, off the top of his head, extensive details about Osho's travels in the mid-1980s. Yet despite his extensive personal knowledge of Osho's teachings and travels, Off2riorob coyly refuses to confirm that he had any connection to that leader of a small Indian-based new religious movement, one about which Cirt has written extensively. Instead there are protestations that we must not look behind the curtain at the people making charges against an editor. This smacks of dishonesty.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for posting the diff, please check the others and add any missing, thanks. As you can see , my comments here are all pretty vague, I was not personally involved. This was a topic I was interested in when I first edited here - cut my teeth on it you could say - those issues have nothing to do with my comments here. I never think of them, never edit in those areas and care less about them. The policy violations by User:Cirt are laid out on the RFC page for all to see. I hope to never have to remove such a violation as I posted above again from an experienced administrator. If I do - User:Cirt will be at arbitration before his feet touch the ground. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You just happened to know that Osho stayed in a "small" bed and breakfast in Limerick over 20 years ago? You know he was thrown out of Greece for criticizing priests, just because you had some interest in the topic? That really doesn't ring true. Editors who refuse to admit their conflicts of interest, or avoid areas where they have such conflicts, are one of the problems which give Wikipedia a bad name.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I was interested in the topic but not personally enough to consider myself having a conflict of interest in any way. I am interested in many things, and stumbled into the wikipedia , researching as I went along. Any interest I had would be a pin prick compared to User:Cirt's Scientology focus. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The boundary of where editors have a conflict of interest seems to be vague in some people's minds. What level of involvement with a spiritual movement is necessary, in your opinion, to create a conflict of interest?   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, this is nuts. You're one of the most experienced and respected editors on the project. Uploading/linking the videos was okay or it wasn't, no matter who asks about it. If it was okay, defend it. If it wasn't, say so; or just let it go and take a break. Impugning the guy who asks about it is wrong, and not helpful to anyone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What do videos have to do with the topic is this thread, which concerns the long-standing animosity between Cirt and two editors with a history of pro-Osho editing?   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess your reply tells me as much as I'm going to learn about Cirt and those videos. Take care, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's important than I suggest starting a separate thread about it.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How many more threads do we need? Just read WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB, and then view the videos. --JN466 02:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not change the topic. You have a history of pro-Osho editing, as does Off2riorob. Both of you have been persistent critics of Cirt for years. You are trying to make it sound like your concerns about Cirt are pure, and you even got your wife to come tell us that you don't have an ax to grind with Cirt. But that's hard to believe considering your history together, which dates back four years. You say you have no connection to the Osho movement anymore, but I also see that you've asked for and obtained permission to use their copyrighted photographs. That gives the impression that you still have a connection.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I recall, I contacted Osho's estate three or four years ago to ask if they would be prepared to release a photo of him for his biography, as the photos we had were all copyvios and kept getting deleted. They refused, but agreed to release an image of their meditation resort. Do you feel it was improper of me to ask? Asking for an image does not make me beholden to them, and I very much doubt his PR staff would like my edits. --JN466 09:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I went off topic there asking about those videos. I do not know nor have I ever known anyone named Osho, nor have I ever followed anyone named Rajneesh, except one time I followed this guy who, now that I think about it, looked like he might have been named Rajneesh (hope that doesn't make me a racist.) Anyway, I asked this guy if there was a soda machine and he said 'follow me.' I did, and lo! there it was. Maybe his name wasn't Rajneesh, but I can't say for sure that it was not. Hopefully that addresses the main question. Still, uploading and linking those videos seems inappropriate, unless there's more to it, and I still kind of wonder about that. It would be good to hear what that was all about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the Mace-Kingsley Ranch School video is as clear a BLPSPS violation as any I have seen. --JN466 00:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of pro-NRM bias by RFC participants

• This kind of interrogation tactic is inappropriate. Its also inappropriate for Will Beback to imply comments on this RfC/U lack legitimacy because he is making associations with organizations or associations which he may not on some level support or like. This can intimidate editors who may publicly or privately have some kind of connections with the organizations Will is identifying. This smacks of bias, and bigotry. While I am not concerned about myself having dealt with this kind of thing before, other editors may not have had my fortunate /unfortunate history. I am reminded that editors are not in any way required to submit to this kind of interrogation about their private lives, while they should consider if replying to Will's questions would appear to endorse this kind of behaviour. Further, Draco Essentials' comment seems no more or less unusual to me than multiple other comments I have read in DR pages. By all means investigate every editor on these pages but if that is done, you can expect editors to refuse to comment in the future. And do not even consider investigating editors selected on basis of some perceived connection to some organization as outlined by Will Bebeack. That is straight up bigotry. I would continue on with our regularly scheduled program and leave behind this advertisement for what Wikipedia is not. (olive (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

• Ah, another follower of an Indian-based new religious movement who opposes Cirt. I see your colleague Timidguy has participated in this RfC too. Just by random chance, I'm sure. No ganging up on Cirt by pro-NRM editors. Don't even dare suggest that.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me make something very clear. I know very little of Cirt's history except for what I see here. I read and commented in I think three places. And that's ganging up? My personal concerns are based on multiple, odd, Future Perfect/Cirt tandem comments/closures on DR boards. Once again: As a means to discredit, attempting to connect editors to some organization, and alleging that COI had driven editors to act in an unfair way indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COI, and is a form of bigotry. As a reminder, this board is a means to review behaviour so forums where bans or blocks can be meted out aren't necessary, and editors can improve. Could we get on with that?(olive (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

So it's OK to accuse Cirt of promoting gay porn, but it's bigotry to say that longtime members of new religious movement might be biased in favor of their spiritual leaders? I think that's a double standard. It's OK to accuse Future Perfect/Cirt of complicity, but comments about co-religionists working together are just an attempt to discredit them? Another double standard. It looks like editors with clear conflicts of interest are trying to get Cirt to leave, or at least to stop editing articles related to new religious movements.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't Cirt already stopped editing articles in the NRM area? I don't see where anyone is trying to get him to stop doing so. The problems with his editing, as outlined in the RFC, have to do with promotional articles being written in other areas. As far as I can see no one is concerned with the cause of his activist editing of political entries, but only with the result. I say this because only the cause of this editing is connected to NRMs (Scientology specifically). So Will, I think you're massively confused here about the motives of editors critical of Cirt. I can buy that there is some lingering resentment if what you say is true, but clearly this is not an active campaign to get him to stop editing articles he's not really editing anymore. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I could be mistaken - it's happened once or twice. ;) I recall a comment about avoiding Scientology, or at least reducing editing there. What has Cirt said about stopping editing NRMs in general?   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, and more of the same.(olive (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

• I agree, Olive. This is one of the reasons why I'm currently drafting an editor conduct RfC on Will Beback, because of a pattern of this type of behavior. If you'd like to participate, please put my user talk page on your watchlist and I'll announce there when it's finalized. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cla68, you've been threatening an RFC against me for at least half a year. It seems like a bullying tactic. Have I violated any policies or guidelines in this thread? When I've confronted you with your accusations before you've refused to specify anything, saying that you'd put it in an RfC or an RFAR (you filed one of those and it was rejected). So please, say exactly which policy or guideline I've violated here.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• And once again, Cla68 makes an accusation that he won't or can't support.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Will, Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility Other Uncivil Behaviors: Point "A" most common one I see from you. WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? is being displayed here quite well specifically the first two bullet points. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure you read the whole thing: pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack...   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Editors here are alleging all kinds of motives for Cirt's editing. So motivation is clearly on the table. We have Jayen466 and Off2riorob, who have a history of pro-Osho editing. There's Littleolive oil and TimidGuy, who mostly edit articles related to Transcendental Mediation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. There's even an editor here who has a long history of making edits favorable to another new religious movement, Twelve Tribes communities. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Will as a matter fact they cut off my research for a few weeks after I refused to remove the sections from the article. Specifically the sections Twelve Tribes communities#Cottage industries child labor controversy and the New England Institute of Religious Research's Bob Pardon's comment in the article. Why dont you just call us Cult apologists and complete your ad homien attacks. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Who cut off your research? 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• As a new editor on the Osho articles I saw what I precieved was a less than neutral reporting of the subject and attempted to correct it - you know how it is when your a wiki newbie without any experience. I have no idea - what is a pro NRM bias? - Ah ok , a new religious movement - crikey, this is getting silly - go read the policy violations on the RFC page, you are overly involved to even see any violations Will. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I just edited rosary. Can't that be construed as implying anti-Cirt bias? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• These are some pretty serious, game-changing accusations. The alleged pro-NRM editors better address them in full, because we might have a more serious problem on our hands than some puffy pieces on podunk restaurants. The reaction thus far, which has consisted of evasion, ad-hominem attacks against Will, and threats of another RfC/U show that these "pro-NRM" editors who are prosecuting the RfC/U against Cirt regard the RfC/U process as a manner of intimidating religious opponents instead of discussing and resolving disputes. Quigley (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are two factions and it would be unfair to Cirt not to acknowledge this. Andries (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to user:Guigley - Such claims are a side show - User:Cirt's policy violations are clearly laid out in the RFC for all to see, hopefully such problems won't occur again, the User:Cirt seems to have taken them on board, so lets hope this will be the end of it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Reply to Quiqley (is that "Quigley" like New Zealand ("Kiwi") politician Derek Quigley?) - I am very sorry to report that I'm unfortunately not associated with any cult, but to please you and others who insist that I must be, I've requested on User talk:DracoEssentialis [59] that a cult be assigned to me so that I may properly fit into the imaginative "make-believe" world you've created in your head. Please excuse any temporary interruption in your fantasy as I learn the ways and rituals of this cult and learn to conform to the wishes of the group. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all surprised to see Timid and LittleOlive here. They and a few others consistently use Wikipedia in an attempt to promote their religion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of my promotion of Catholicism, my religion. (olive (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC))

The Transcendental Meditation movement is commonly referred to as a new religious movement. I could provide references, but you're already familiar with them.   Will Beback  talk  02:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You confuse sources with real life. You as an admin are supporting another admin in harassment, poisoning the well, who displays bias and bigotry, and who is misguided enough to think he knows what an editor's religion is, and secure enough to make such a comment in a public forum in his belief that no one here will say anything about it. And Will, do not imply you know what another editor's religion is. You have illustrated my points very well. Very unfortunate actually, very sad.(olive (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

With the ArbCom case running net five in favor of opening the case, one would think that there'd be a bit more attention to the spirit of WP:BUTT around here. Are folks really that unclear on WP:NPA#WHATIS? I may not agree with Olive in many particulars, but I feel embarrassed for Olive and for Wikipedia as a whole, reading this discussion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is simply that a number (though not all) of the people who have posted negative views of Cirt have something in common, a factor related to one of his general topics of interest. It doesn't matter whether it's religious, national, ethnic, cultural, or whatever.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting any sort of "nano-cabal"? Otherwise your comments are grossly offensive to WP:NPA principles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "nano-cabal" is. What I'm asserting is that some of the editors who have participated here have common cause. It's not a personal attack to note, in the context of dispute resolution, that some editors on one side of a dispute share relevant editing interests and perspectives. If there's a particular clause in NPA which forbids us from suggesting that editors may have ulterior motives in pursuing dispute resolution then please point it out.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In short - you are specifically accusing those here of having "ulterior motives." I, for one, am grossly offended by that suggestion - especially since I ran "wikistalk" on every group here and found absolutely zero evdence of editorial cohesion whatsoever. Your accusation is made up of whole cloth as far as I can determine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Many editors here are asserting that Cirt is editing with ulterior motives. That is not necessarily a person attack in the context of an RFC/U, which exists to comment on users activities. If it's appropriate to suggest that he has ulterior motives then why is it a violation to comment on possible ulterior motives of his accusers? I never said anything about "editorial cohesion", so that's a straw man.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that the only times that "ulterior motives" have been connected to Cirt's edits evidence of a connection between his editing and those motives have also been presented. What you have been doing is casting aspersions by insinuating that belonging to a group gives someone ulterior motives by default. No one has suggested that simply being a member or a friend of the group Anonymous gives him ulterior motives, but that's what you've been suggesting about those who have some kind of affiliation with an NRM.Griswaldo (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To abstract this a bit, let's say that an editor has a history of making edits showing negative aspects of the Boston Red Sox. Let's also say that a number of editors have a history of making edits that show positive aspects of that team. If those same editors began making complaints about that editor in regard to another field, then it is reasonable to point out the other dispute.

I am not saying that belonging to a group gives someone an ulterior motive, though it might. I am saying that some editors here have a history of making edits that are favorable or one or more NRMs, and that Cirt has a history of making edits from what could be called the opposite POV. Writing about one's spiritual leader is almost an inevitable conflict of interest, since it's unreasonable to expect someone to put Wikipedia's interests about the interests of their faith. (We're talking about small movements, not the Catholic Church).   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in pointing out such things, it keeps people trying to judge the situation alert to possible bias. The problem is, historically, others have used these warnings as an argument or excuse for not examining serious accusations on their merits, and some accusations here definitely warrant close scrutiny. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Symmetric and antisymmetric POV

Reading over the comments about Corbin Fisher, I think that there is some fundamental difference in how some people here react when they have a POV. To me, someone like Dan Savage is a good columnist, so I want us to have very detailed articles about him and his activities so people can read everything they want about him. And someone like Corbin Fisher, whose legal letter-writing campaign I can't really describe using words consistent with the BLP policy - I also want us to have very detailed articles about him, so that the people at the end of those letters can read what he's done, what he hasn't done, and perchance gain useful intel that will serve them in whatever means they wish to make their displeasure known. So to me POV is symmetric: positive POV and negative POV both lead me to exactly the same conclusion: I want as much information as possible to go up in the article. And when I don't know about a topic? Well, then obviously we need more information so I can develop a POV... But there are people here who talk as if writing about a person means that you side with him, and whose views at AfDs make me think that if they like something they want it kept and if they dislike it they want it deleted. It is as if they have an antisymmetric POV. I really wonder if this is true: is fundamental Wikipolitics really split up into bosons and fermions according to some weird application of quantum mechanics? What does that say about consciousness as a phenomenon? Wnt (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying that the Corbin Fisher article was non-neutral, I'd happily agree with you. :) Perhaps you want to sign up under DGG. --JN466 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these are forces at work and that will lead to spontaneous symmetry breaking on Wikipedia. But an entire article does not fit in one domain where the symmetry is broken in one or the other way, so you have domain walls inside the articles and editors on both sides want to push the domain walls in opposite directions. Count Iblis (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Wnt is a symmetricism apologist. Just saying. Hume said reason is the slave of the emotions, modern neuroscience doesn't contradict that, so "I like = 'keep' followed by rationalisations." There are people whose frontal lobes can imagine fairness and work against such instincts, but distinguishing them on a Wikipedia talk page is a challenge. I think it's a bit early to apply quantum mechanics principles to consciousness, but that's because I just don't like the idea. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Where to?

I'm here to learn if there is any problem with Cirt's behaviour. There is. It is a shame Cirt denies this, because we'll likely be seeing more of it. His withdrawal from subject areas is based on "I haven't done anything wrong but they don't want me there, so I'll go." This just bolsters the martyr/persecuted hero myth and moves the problem elsewhere. I don't see anywhere for this RfC to go now. Is it time to wrap up? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see it getting anywhere constructive at this stage - quite the opposite given the bickering above. Wrapping it up seems like a very good idea. Prioryman (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is nowhere to get to - RFC users are not a request for anything at all but a discussion about a users problematic contributions. I have not much experience with RFCuser but experienced editors that do will close in good time. Off2riorob (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The default running time is 30 days. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla68. I didn't know. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman closure

I reverted Jehochman's closure. Jehochman is heavily involved in many of Cirt's attempts to use noticeboards for advantage in content disputes, not to mention protecting Cirt when others complain about him. This is evident in the links provided by commentators at the RFC. Jehochman is much to involved to close this down, and absolutely too involved to add a non-neutral summary chastising those who are criticizing Cirt. For shame. Please let someone neutral close this if necessary.Griswaldo (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I generally side with the anti-cult/anti-NRM faction, but I suspect that Cirt's editing behavior in Scientology is not okay. The end result in Wikipedia shows an unhealthy obsession for trivia and overly critical treatment of Scientology for my taste. (I did not look at the evidence of Cirt's edits.) I think that Jehochman's closure does not reflect the MANY complexities of the cult/nrm field. Andries (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Jehochman's partisan closure was inappropriate, but he is right: it is unfair to have two discussions of Cirt's conduct running concurrently. I would have no problem with an uninvolved editor closing this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, my closure is not to be reverted. Please undo yourself, lest you get in trouble for disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no way you are the correct person to close anything in this RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It sucks to criticize people without evidence. Would all of you please put up diffs to establish my involvement, per WP:INVOLVED, or else redact your comments. Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is still active discussions going on, there is no reason to close at this time. The RFARB ius about a lot of people - the fact that that case is under discussion is no reason to close this RFC at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a potentially valid argument, though I think the results here are plain enough, and that allowing the feud page to continue operating will not serve Wikipedia's interests. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To save myself the trouble of following the page's instructions and notifying multiple people: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FCirt William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of keeping this open is unless editors here are willing to work towards constructive and mutually agreeable solutions. It seems like there's just arguing and accusations of bad faith here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is a good reason for early closure: to prevent further deepening of feuds. A request for arbitration is pending. Those who feel further steps are needed should make a case for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Jehochman is right in desiring a closure. Griswaldo is also right in asking for someone more neutral to do it. So let it be so and end the argument. Eh? -- Avanu (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it had degenerated into an unedifying brawl. But it needs to be closed by an uninvolved party. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection to this being closed. Big objection to the closing summary that tars everyone who commented here as a malicious sockpuppet and/or responsible for socking at NARM articles. --JN466 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I have endorsed the closure. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And you endorsed Jehochman's nasty comments, like "... this RFC is just an extension of a long running dirty tricks campaign. Good advice for those promoting this RFC would be to put your own house in order." I felt that Cirt was doing the tricking. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Was clarified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Closure is fine. I reject any suggestion that those of us with blp concerns are cult members out to destroy Cirt. Still, Cirt has to a degree acknowledged peoples' concerns, and he'll probably be more aware of blp in the future. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now clarified that I endorse the act of closing, and the first/last sentences of the initial summary. I do not endorse the whole thing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said at ANI I don't think it's appropriate to leave Jehochman's summary at the top of this RfCU. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately, his summary has been the subject of much discussion, and editors are strongly discouraged from editing or blanking comments that don't belong to them. It would be best if Jehochman would voluntarily strikethrough his statement, but since it has already been discussed and may well be relevant during the arbcom case, I'm not going to outright remove it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks TW. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No big deal. Things often come out with an emphasis that wasn't intended, or are too broadly read, especially when everyone is annoyed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It adds weight ot the reasons for arbitration, and he should be added to the case. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rob. I withdraw my objections. Let Jehochman's grossly partisan closure stand as a perfect illustration of the problem here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• To be clear, my summary is presented as a concise summary of the relevant background facts and most prevalent statements at the RFC. These are not my personal opinions, which are actually somewhat different, and at the moment, irrelevant. Tom Harrison's remark is especially relevant, "Things often come out with an emphasis that wasn't intended, or are too broadly read, especially when everyone is annoyed." I have miniaturized the parts of the closure that are dictum and left full size that which is binding, per The Wordsmith: this RFC is closed, and Cirt should continue to strive to be a better editor and to closely follow BLP, as should we all. I don't appreciate the "Jehochman is obviously biased ZOMG!!!" style comments. If you want to make a case for bias or involvement, do it with diffs. Don't just assert negative things about another editor. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • diff --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Ha, ha, ha. Wicked funny. You have to show diffs of my prior involvement in editorial disputes related to these topics. You'll have a hard time doing that because New Age religions and cults don't interest me at all. I don't edit these topics, except perhaps once in a great while to neutralize a BLP problem. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually I just came back to delete this but you beat me here. I read your comment to JN. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • If you think that attacking anyone who does not approve of Cirt's conduct or that "this RFC is just an extension of a long running dirty tricks campaign", then that in and of itself speaks to your inability to fairly consider the merits of the RFC. --B (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes. The diffs required to establish any bias towards Cirt will be on noticeboards and pages like this. I've reread your comment on JN's page and it just seems like dissembling. You may think it's all true, but if your behaviour on this page is anything to go by, you need to rethink. You just assumed we were all new age Cirt-haters and made no effort to actually hear our arguments. They don't appear in your "summary". Most of the admin interaction I've seen around Cirt has been of the same lazy rubber stamp quality. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Question: would there be any procedural objection to being able to re-open this RfC/U in the event that ArbCom does not accept the case, or if they accept a case with a scope that is different than the issues that were being examined here? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that if you don't like the result, you are just going to keep campaigning anyway? That's doesn't seem like a wise statement for you to be making right before an arbitration case opens. A better statement would be, "I will use dispute resolution, and then accept the results, even if I don't like them." If you look at this RFC, you will see large numbers of editors who feel that this RFC was overstating the complaints. You need to recognize which way the wind is blowing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• From your indent, it sounds like you are saying that to me, rather than to editors higher up in this discussion thread. If so, you have not familiarized yourself with what I have (and haven't yet) said in this RfC/U (no comments in the RfC itself, and the only previous talk comments in #A suggestion to Cirt and #WP:BOMB, above), and your comment is inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to make note of this: [60], and conclude that Jehochman made the comment to me, above, unencumbered by knowledge of the facts. And then I'm going to shrug, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jehochman, your neutrality is more than in question on the issue of Cirt. In five minutes of searching, I found Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive78#Cirt where you "closed" a sanction request regarding Cirt over repeated objections as to your involvement and then of course there's his RFA where you hounded several good faith users who opposed it. It's not just the impropriety - it's the appearance of impropriety. When it's obvious that a decent number of people don't accept you as a neutral arbiter, you should bow out and let someone who is unquestionably neutral deal with it. I recognize that there are some prolific users that everyone has dealt with at one time or another, but surely there exists at least one admin who has not taken action regarding Cirt. --B (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Involvement

When I said that Jehochman was too involved to close this RFC I largely had in mind events surrounding the first link provided by B just above. As B also points out Jehochman was highly involved in aiding Cirt during Cirt's RFA. That was an interesting read. I have a hard time, based on those actions alone, to understand how he thinks it is appropriate to act as an admin in this capacity now. I am also of the mind that the non-neutral closing message pretty much speaks for itself in this regard. Anyway here is Jehochman Generally running interference for Cirt at AE. During that discussion deflects attention from concerns about Cirt’s editing while broadly threatening to block people who don’t stop criticizing Cirt. But read the entire discussion because it is quite illuminating. Not long after that Jehochman accuses Jayen of “hounding Cirt," while he again lobbies for no sanctions on Cirt. I suggest also to read that entire exchange. As to involvement in related topic areas, which Jehochman proclaims he doesn't have, it is important to note that User:Jehochman hardly ever makes any content edits on Wikipedia at all, or at least not from what I could see when I tried looking just now. He does however, often engage in content related disputes on noticeboards (see above) and other venues like arbitration. During the Scientology arbitration he [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence&oldid=291874918 presented evidence and made workshop proposals that were firmly on Cirt's side of things. He also lobbied for Cirt and other Scientology critics on the workshop pages -- that is lobbied to have proposed sanctions not placed on them. I want it to be clear here that I am not accusing Jehochman of any wrong doing when it comes to his POV or about his relationship with Cirt. He's welcome to think whatever he wants and argue for his buddies whenever he wants, but he needs to refrain from taking administrative action on their behalf in this way.Griswaldo (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Request for Arbitration would be a good place to mention this stuff. Edit warring over the closure does not help. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is edit warring? You are in fact edit warring over the closure, unfortunately. Please see what Ncmvocalist told Jehochman about proper procedure here. RfCs are not usually closed until the Arbitration is actually accepted, so as to not disrupt it unnecessarily.Griswaldo (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I note your correct about policy and will self revert shortly. I am personally unsure which is correct now you have raised this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Move on

Any further concerns can in the Request for arbitration where Jenchoman's involvement (or lack there of) can be evaluated better in the evidence section. Jehochman is an editor I have a long standing respect for though I disagree with his evaluation of the RFC/U griping about here serve no purpose in advancing this RFC/U. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Reopened

RfC's normally run for 30 days. Jehochman, to his credit, openly declared that one reason he closed the RfC was because he disapproved of it. I've warned him on his talk page and moved his comments down as a "view" in the RfC. I've also asked for administrator intervention at AN [61] to ensure the RfC is allowed to run its course. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of having the RfC running alongside the arbcom case? If you want to keep it open for now, that's fine (though I would argue pointless), but if arbcom accepts then we should close this and consolidate all associated bickering over there. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no arbcom case yet. If arbcom doesn't accept then what? The proper thing to do is to wait until such time they accept before closing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand what Ncmvocalist means. It should stay open until there is a case; if there isn't one, then it will run the standard 30 days. --JN466 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was arguing, as well. Even so, I don't see much happening with the RfC even if it stays open and arbcom rejects it. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, please don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said, nor what I meant. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour here has been shameful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What a productive RfC this is. May I suggest we lay off the attacks and either focus on the issue at hand (which Cirt seems to have dealt with), or call it a day? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with him.

This RfC has been productive, but over the last couple of days it degenerated into a shit-fight. Hopefully, the RfAR has acted as a circuit-break to that. The way I see it is: some clear instances of problematic behaviour on Cirt's behalf have come to light. Cirt's response is, I didn't do anything wrong here, but I'll move out of the area of political BLP.

Accusations of hounding have been leveled at those who bring evidence of his misbehaviour. If the accusations of hounding have merit, they need to be addressed, but not here. This is RfCU/Cirt.

The question for us is, is Cirt's response a suitable end to this process? I believe it is not, because if he doesn't recognise his problem behaviours, he'll carry them with him into whatever area he moves into, as he took them from Scientology into Santorum. I'd have liked to have seen this RfCU provide him with the necessary insight but, as Stephan's table below points out, this is split down partisan lines, and the more I familiarise myself with this case, the more I see the same editors turning up, year after year to criticise and defend Cirt. This partisanship runs right through the admin corps, too, so the only place I can see, that might offer Cirt good counsel is the arbitration committee. As Hobit says at the RfAR, it shouldn't take long and may put an end to this saga. I'm pretty sure most of Cirt's critics just want him to acknowledge that he's made some very serious errors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actual closing rules

Please note that there is no magic 30-day timer for RFC/Us. The 30-day bot only works for content RFCs. RFC/Us are always closed manually, and we like to think that we're smarter than a calendar-driven bot. The actual rule is that RFC/Us are closed under three circumstances:

1. when nothing's happening ("due to inactivity")
2. when something else is happening ("due to other dispute resolution")
3. when everyone agrees that they're done ("by agreement")

I know that WP:Nobody reads the directions, but if you're aiming for #2, the advice is this: "RfC/Us are also closed when the dispute has proceeded to another venue in dispute resolution. Bear in mind that if it has proceeded to arbitration or mediation, a case needs to have been accepted and opened before the RfC/U should be closed."

Consequently, this RFC/U should technically be left open. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This means the closure was out of process. --JN466 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There are good grounds to have closed it because Arbitration is clearly going to be accepted and everybody is already duplicating statements here and there. Moreover, this RFC had descended into acrimony, with both sides digging in deeper, and uninvolved parties being repelled by all the mud slinging. On the whole it was not benefiting Wikipedia to continue, quiet the opposite. We are not bound by any rule except to do what is best for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt mind closing it off here, but since you have been added to the case Jehochman and your closure is under dispute(rightly or wrongly) then another admin should close it with their own summary. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jehochman - As for your claim of acrimony - Will was asking some questions he felt were relevant and he felt needed discussing, personally I thought we were getting somewhere, your unnecessary and objected to close stopped that discussion/progress and possible resolution dead in its tracks. There was/is no current reason to close this RFC User:Cirt at all while discussion is ongoing, the RFCArbitration is not currently focused on User:Cirt but much more broad in focus. I object to the early closure of this RFC. I would suggest you leave this RFC user open for the normal amount of time - around thirty days. As the time progresses more uninvolved users may read and comment. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, there has been additional participation in the RfC since the mistaken attempt to close it. By reopening it, at least one other editor has been given a chance to participate. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Two additional editors have now been able to participate [62] [63], one of whom appears to have had his Wikipedia experience permanently soured by the way he was treated when he objected to something Cirt was doing. These are important inputs to this RfC, and it would have been unfortunate for them to have been left out. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Analysis table

As just stated on the main page, I've started a table of all views and all endorsers. I went through the first 12 statements - now I go to bed. Given that this is a Wiki, feel free to complete the table. The raw form, suitable for extension, is below. The table is based on this version of the RfC. If someone wants to extend this, I strongly recommend using a fixed font... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

                               1-  2-  3-  4-  5+  6+  7=  8=  9+  A-  B+  C+
Jayen466                        X   X   X   X           X           X
Cla68                           X   X                               X
The Resident Anthropologist     X   X   X               X           X
Collect                         X                                   X
Griswaldo                       X   X   X               X           X
SlimVirgin                      X
Nolelover                           X                               X
Viriditas                           X
DGG                                 X                               X
Rocksanddirt                        X   X                           X
Off2riorb                           X   X   X
THF                                     X
Anthonyhcole                            X                           X
Kanguole                                X                           X
Wnt                                             X                       X   X
LadyOfShalott                                   X
Quigley                                         X   X                   X   X
Macwhiz                                         X       X   X           X   X
Ohms law                                        X   X                   X   X
Gamaliel                                        X   X                   X   X
JamesMLane                                      X                       X   X
Hobit                                           X   X   X               X   X
Piotrus                                         X                       X   X
Orderinchaos                                    X   X                   X   X
Jmh649                                          X
Sadads                                          X   X                   X   X
Brewcrewer                                      X   X                   X   X
Cardamon                                        X                       X
Jusdafax                                        X   X                   X
Atmoz                                           X   X                   X
AKMask                                          X                       X   X
MartinPoulter                                       X                   X   X
William M. Connolley                                X                       X
Protonk                                             X                   X   X
OlEnglish                                           X
R. Baley                                            X                       X
Count Iblis                                         X                   X   X
Khazar                                                  X
Cirt                                                    X
Qrsdogg                                                 X
LuftWaffle0                                                 X
Georgewilliamherbert                                            X
Tarc                                                                X  
Richwales                                                           X
Prioryman                                                               X   X
JoshuaZ                                                                 X   X
Raoul654                                                                X
Throwaway85                                                                 X
Ginsengbomb                                                                 X
Bearian                                                                     X
OhanaUnited                                                                 X
Elektrik Shoos                                                              X

1 Certifiers and endorsers

2 Additional views by Cla68

3 Whistleblower protection

4 Additional views by Jayen466

5 Semi-involved view by Wnt

6 Peripherally-involved view by Quigley

7 Semi-involved view by Khazar

8 Semi-involved view by LuftWaffle0

9 Semi-involved view by Georgewilliamherbert

A Outside view by Collect

B Outside view by Gamaliel

C Outside view by macwhiz

Sharron Angle

I've added a section on editing of the Sharron Angle biography to the evidence part of the RfC/U. --JN466 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is a prime example of User:Cirt's problematic and undue contributions. His creation there was totally undue, basically an attack, it was defended by User:Coffeepusher. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

When did that editing occur? More than a year ago?   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am afraid the policy violations and patterns have existed for quite some time. Part of the responsibility lies with users that have supported the User:Cirt in his on wiki activism, without their support this would have been far less of a problem. Like in this case User:Cirt's awful content was supported by another editor with a strong focus on Scientology User:Coffeepusher. Together they got the new user who making totally correct edits blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We've all made edits in the past that we might not defend today. The ArbCom usually does not pay attention to issues over a year old, especially if editors have changed their behavior.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cirt was a massively experienced editor when he turned that BLP into an awful indefensible anti Scientology coatrack - there have been issues since then also. - What does User:Cirt have to say about his creating such content -... he is going to edit in other areas... as I said, when the editor is the issue wherever they go , they remain - I would like to see User:Cirt actually accept his serious violations of core policy, that would be a good start. As User:Cirt's contributions to these search results for Sharon Angle at wikinews show, the User:Cirt is actively following the same editing patterns using multiple wiki projects. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, Wikipedia:Coatrack was just an essay.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Which editor was blocked? Is it always wrong for two editors to revert a third editor? I've seen instances where Jayen and Cla68 have worked together to do reverts, for example. I think this a spurious complaint based on an assumption of bad faith.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Come now Will, you know just as well as I that WP:COATRACK might as well be policy for all the times it is quite validly cited in NPOV discussions.

As far as Sharron Angle goes, I was involved with that; I was actually the person who cleaned up that article. I must say, that to Cirt's credit, after I brought up the problems and made one follow up, he was quite willing to change his approach to that article at least. That much at least should be mentioned in the evidence summary. Otherwise, it lends credence to the belief that this RFC/U is being treated as a battleground, adversarial position and not as a proper instrument of dispute resolution. NW (Talk) 03:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note, NW. If you can think of a better way of phrasing it, please feel free to edit and amend it, as you were involved at the time.

I will say though that this is part of a pattern I seem to recall observing: if it is an IP or a single editor who raises a problem like this, Cirt is very combative, templating the other party with vandalism warnings, stating on their talk page that they deleted sourced material, etc., always phrased in such a way as to increase the likelihood of sanctions if the matter goes to a board and an admin comes by and gives the page a superficial look-over. (Aha! 3 templates! Clearly a vandal. Blocked.) However, if an established editor like you joins in, Cirt immediately drops it, and becomes mellow and cooperative. <shrug> --JN466 03:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(Example: Section "Remaining concerns") --JN466 03:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not sure I entirely agree, but I haven't looked into this matter enough to stake out a firm position (kind of per [64], to be honest). NW (Talk) 03:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, specific criticisms like this, stated calmly are useful. Are you saying that Cirt needs to extend the same good faith to new users as estalished users? I find that AGF often works well even when it isn't deserved. Our hope is for Cirt to receive good advice, and follow it. RFC is not merely a formality on the path to sanctining an editor. Jehochman ^Talk 03:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Extending good faith to new users would help, yes. I am sorry, but I often have the impression he considers them an annoying interruption, and seeks to get them out of the way as efficiently as possible; especially if their POV seems not to be the same as his. :( --JN466 03:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Biting newbies is one indicator of an activist editor. I think I highlighted that fact in the essay I helped write on the topic. I'm not sure if what I wrote on it is still in the essay, because the essay later underwent an extensive rewrite by other editors. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about user:Dougieb? He's been editing since 2006, four years prior to the edits in question and about as long as Jayen466.   Will Beback  talk  07:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I note the editor effectively gave up editing after that experience. [65] User notified of this conversation. [66] This user has a clean block log. [67] Were you mistaken, or referring to someone else, Rob? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see thanks - from this comment in the report "Cirt edit-warred in tandem with another user and then took Dougieb to WP:AN3" - I assumed he was blocked for the reverting, but now I see User:Ed Johnson's quality closing of User:Cirt's 3RR report. - , he clearly refered to WP:BLP and didn't block the user and protected the page. Here is the thread on the users talkpage User_talk:Dougieb#May_2010 . Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Dougieb has made a total of 684 edits. --JN466 15:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To take another current example, compare Cirt's language here and here to the language used by Sensei here. I would say that Sensei's approach is more in line with AGF, more conducive to a peaceful resolution of the content disagreement, and less likely to leave behind lingering resentment. Also note User_talk:Sensei48#July_2011. --JN466 15:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Though Sensei's style is admirable, plenty of editors are as blunt as Cirt is on that page. Rude but not remarkable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

True, though I find that Cirt is very adept at portraying edits made by POV opponents as infractions of Wikipedia rules. But as you say, that's common enough, and part of this place. --JN466 16:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here. As long as there is no edit warring, abuse of Admin tools, or systematic misrepresentation of sources, there can't be a problem. Cirt can edit in any way he likes, even violate the most basic policies like NPOV, BLP, etc. (I'm not saying he did that), as long as the communtity doesn't object, because the only hard rule on Wikipeda is that there are no rules (WP:IAR) and that edit warring is not tolerated (the status of the rules like NPOV, BLP etc. have to be understood as what the community be default wants). Then, if the community does object to his editing, then he has to take those objections into account . Cirt's statements indicate that he will do that and there isn't evidence that suggests that he hasn't done this in the past.

Now, an article on a high profile subject like Sharron Angle is heavily scrutinized by many editors, so if the community feels that there is/was a problem there, the community is to blame, not any particular editor (problem editors can always be blocked, of course). So, this is just about bringing Wikipedia content in line with some POV; the group of edtors opposed to Cirt can't edit/monitor all of Wikipedia all the time, so they want to make sure that productive editors who edit with a different POV/attitude are brought in line.

So, even if Cirt's critics are correct on most of the issues they raise, there still isn't a problem here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken on every point you just made. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis's comments here are unfathomable completely in comparison with policy and guidelines, better if the user didn't comment at all. His comment is worthless, I think it was meant to disrupt. deliberately disruptive - there is nothing else to explain it - see how he says such crap as Cirt can edit in any way he likes, even violate the most basic policies like NPOV, BLP, etc. - what a disgusting comment. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I hate to point out the obvious - Count Iblis's comment is dripping with sarcasm and irony. It's obviously intended humorously, not seriously. --B (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

HO, ho ho - User:Count Iblis should take his rubbish irony and mistaken humor elsewhere - this discussion is about policy violations. He should strike his comments - or clearly mark them as meant as humorous irony. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

:) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all irrelevant. Policy violations need to be dicsussed in the context of any editing disputes of articles. There are no such issues at this time. Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The law of diminishing returns

I don't think it is helping to increase the length of this conversation. Please avoid repeatitive arguments. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

:) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling notwithstanding, I have to agree. But what would be helpful would be for editors to try to figure out a middle ground, to try to identify at least a limited consensus, instead of prolonging the polarization. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two effects. The polarization tends to generate more polarization, but then there is the law of diminishing returns that takes the energy away from that. You then get a stable situation that is a universal phenomenon: a soliton. Even vacuum can be polarized by electromagnetic fields, a powerful pulse of light will affect the vacuum which will then lead to the light pulse becoming self-focussed, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh...huh. Mmmm. Like warriors at the end of a long battle, exhausted but more opposed than ever. (I'm more arts than science.) Perhaps we can sneak in a little conciliatory chat before some warriors peel themselves out of the mud and blood and resume clubbing each other. Any suggestions, Tryptofish or Ibis? What do you think is the least required to drain this thing permanently of it's thumos. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me a new word. I think what is needed is a retreat from the sense of emergency and urgency. The move to close this RfC was seriously misguided. What is needed is for the thumo-dors to go and chill, and for some uninvolved editors to thoughtfully plow through the verbiage and sort out the wheat from the chaff. I'm pretty sure the end result will be something sort of like the closer's main statement, that Cirt needs to do some improvements to his/her editing but heads on spikes are not needed (my words, no one else's), but with specifics as to what those improvements to editing should be. Those improvements, as determined by people who don't already have a dog in this fight, are what haven't been forthcoming yet, but there's no reason why they couldn't be found. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't arbcom be suitable for that? This case is disruptive enough for them to address, even if no one's asking for draconian remedies. I'm pretty sure what's required is for some people Cirt respects to take the trouble to examine his behaviour and advise him about it. They all look pretty clueful and impartial. If that group takes this on, I'm fairly sure the players that matter in this drama will respect their conclusions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see what I recommended to ArbCom. What I'd definitely say by way of reply to you is that I agree that we shouldn't do both simultaneously. What ArbCom is going to accept, and when, is unclear to me, and probably unclear to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn. I thought that was my idea. Let's hope they do the sensible thing and don't get tempted into addressing some meta issue about materialists vs. magical thinkers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I own that idea! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One suggestion: I don't have much use for Sandra Lee (cook). My personal POV toward her is pretty negative. So, when I copy-edited that article, I took careful pains to make sure that I found viewpoints contrary to my own, and presented them in a neutral fashion. I would like to see Cirt take similar pains to ensure that he argues "the other side" of viewpoint-susceptible articles he edits. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Machwiz this is a very productive suggestion, and indeed if Cirt were to take it to heart and edit in this manner most of these complaints would go away. To be fair to Cirt, and I think to some of the people who don't agree with his critics, part of the problem arises from the very fact that Cirt is so good at doing what he does. In other words it becomes difficult for people to even know where to begin sometimes to balance his entries because he's done such a great job presenting the partial view, or overly flattering view, or perhaps negative view that he has presented. I think one of the things that has frustrated many of Cirt's critics is that he has not worked to do what Machwiz suggested. What he has done instead is withdrawn from certain content areas. This gives the impression that its an all or nothing proposition. Either he edits like he does or not at all. I for one would love to see him edit any/all areas of the encyclopedia to his heart's content, but I'd like to see it done in a way that is more cognizant of balance, in a way that works towards what Machwiz has suggested. I commend the suggestion wholeheartedly.Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest re-reading WP:Notability — especially the sections on "Notability requires verifiable evidence" (WP:NRVE) and "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" (WP:SPIP). And as I read WP:NRVE, I am led to the conclusion that if there is a dispute over whether an article is notable or not, the burden falls on those who believe it is notable to establish this — not on those who question notability to find sources disproving notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a Coliseum where people who want to fight can indulge themselves without disturbing those who want to produce articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Njsustain

I've added the Njsustain AN/I thread, two more sources used in the santorum article, and some diffs from Landmark Education. What are editors' views of the evidence of "disruption" raised against Njsustain here? There were six diffs. --JN466 21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My reaction on first hearing about it was to be very concerned that this was a significant problem. Sometimes, these things have a way of having two sides, though (cf: "admin abuse"). So I'd like to hear whether there is another side, and I really wish that Cirt would respond to my suggestion higher up in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, do you feel the six diffs provided in that thread warranted bringing a case for disruption at AN/I against Njsustain? --JN466 21:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per what I said in the thread directly above, I'm going to note that I read your question to me, and say that I'm going to wait until I've read some more before replying substantively. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The article on the restaurant no longer exists in mainspace, but the AfDs for it are here and here. --JN466 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like another outdated issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be, Will, if it were not part of an ongoing pattern. These edits, also added to the RfC/U today, occurred earlier this year:

Warning an IP user adding sourced material (about Giles' role in settling a dispute in Martin Luther King's family) for vandalism:

• IP edit 1 (moves the paragraph and adds sourced and cited info)
• Revert 1 (Reverted 1 edit by 76.17.108.54 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by John Carter. using TW)
• Warning 1 (General note: Nonconstructive editing on Landmark Education. using TW)
• IP edit 2 (repeats edit)
• Revert 2 (rvv.)
• Warning 2 (Warning: Vandalism. using TW)

Editors can in good faith disagree about the appropriateness of the IP's edit, but is it vandalism? --JN466 22:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If the issue that the evidence pertains to has been disposed of administratively, then it shouldn't be brought up again unless the behavior repeats itself. If it hasn't been addressed or if the behavior has been repeated, then the evidence is valid, no matter if it is more than one year old. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than describe what happened, which others can easily claim a different take on, I would like to go on record as saying I wouldn't mind having the article on "Daryl" temporarily exhumed for the purpose of everyone having a chance to see exactly what went on. Njsustain (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Attempting an answer to Jayen466's question: The first edit could possibly have been hastily seen as vandalism because of the misspelling of Martin Luther King's name in the added material. Other than that (which to me is pretty obviously a simple misspelling), I don't see anything about this edit which merits a vandalism tag. WP:Vandalism is quite clear that good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia are not vandalism — even if "misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive" (and I don't clearly see how this edit would even fall into any of those categories). If Cirt saw something in this edit which did point to vandalism (other than the "Marting Luther King" misspelling, which could have easily been corrected without doing a complete revert), then IMO she should have provided some sort of explanation of the issue for the benefit of other editors, rather than simply using Twinkle's "identified as vandalism" boilerplate. Cirt certainly wouldn't be the only editor to overuse the "vandalism" label — I've done this myself on occasion, and one such incident helped torpedo my own RfA several months ago — but it's still a habit that we should all curb (as I've tried hard to do myself). More of concern, though, is that it's not at all clear to me that this sort of revert would have been proper even if the disputed material had been labelled as something other than vandalism — and mislabelling an uncalled-for revert as an anti-vandalism action is particularly disturbing, especially if it is part of a pattern and not simply an isolated incident. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another odd revert: (Reverted 1 edit by BJS.Farrauto (talk); Promo edits from conflict of interest account.. using TW)—even if it was a COI account, this was a sourced edit, and not promotional. [68]. --JN466 18:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• For reference, here is an old post from Bishonen, linked in the RfA, that seems to have some familiar elements: [69] --JN466 03:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a general question/comment for the talk page. The incident in which I was involved with Cirt a year ago I found particularly distressing not only because of the question of the article's propriety, but because its main editor was using his authority as a WP admin to his favor in the situation. So, when I say "conflict of interest", it was not just the question of whether he had a COI regarding writing the article in the first place, but whether he had a COI in using his authority in the dispute. So, my general question is, when a user who happens to be an administrator is in a dispute when editing an article, why is it not considered inappropriate for him to take administrative action. As far as I'm concerned this is equivalent to a judge trying a case in which a person is accused of stealing from a business the judge owns. In other words, shouldn't an administrator recuse himself as an administrator in that case and not take administrative action, and rather ask another admin to take a look at the situation, just as any non-admin user would do? If that is not the custom on WP, it should be.

Looking at this as a person who has been involved with WP almost exclusively as an article editor, rather than as a WP "manager," I humbly suggest that my perspective may be clearer in some respects, and I do see the aforementioned issue as a problem of the mechanisms of WP, a problem which has been a significant cause of the turmoil on this page. What Cirt has been doing is one issue, but how WP as a whole has handled it is quite another, and from my eyes it seems the two are not being distinguished due to the morass of wikilingo rules and policies being bandied about. Njsustain (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In that vast alphabet soup that is Wikipedia on the inside, this is not so much a WP:COI issue as one of WP:INVOLVED. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion for Cirt

Here's a suggestion that's probably gonna be more controversial, and I am not sure that I am going to succeed in putting the thought in my head into words that express it accurately, but I'll try anyway... In a way, I'd like to see Cirt stop backing down so much. Disengaging from the "field of combat" can defuse a situation... to a point. But there's a point where not standing one's ground may create more problems than it solves. I know people who almost always choose to "turn the other cheek" in conflict (sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes just because it's the way they're wired). The problem is that when you do it all the time, it makes it seem as if you don't have much conviction to your principles, and that leads people to question what your principles are. Some of the rancor here is because some of us see Cirt disengage and think that it's being disingenuous. Some see Cirt disengage, see others question it, and perceive bullies picking on the meek. Some see something in between, or something else entirely. I'm willing to give Cirt a reasonable doubt that the recent pattern of disengagement is an understandable response to being embattled, but I don't think that pattern is helpful at this point. There would likely be a lot less argument in this RfC/U if Cirt would explain Cirt's point of view of some of these events, so there wasn't so much guessing at it. I know that I certainly have moments where I wonder... but even so, I'm committed to the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" in the sense of Blackstone's formulation: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Not that I think Cirt is wholly innocent at this point, by any means...

I don't think Cirt is obligated to explain himself this way, but I think it would be a wise course of action. It would reframe the discussion from "you did these questionable things, and I can't understand why" to "you did these questionable things, and you had a reason for doing them, but here's what you might not have considered, see?" I think disengaging before things "come to blows" is often laudable, but one needs to take care not to disengage one's way off the edge of a cliff. Does this make sense outside of my head? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cirt is retreating or turning the other cheek or disengaging before things "come to blows" when confronted with the prospect of serious scrutiny from impartial senior editors. He melts away with bogus "I was misunderstood, but I'll leave the topic now" apologies – and no substantive acknowledgment of wrongdoing. His response to less experienced and less well-connected editors is to harass and bully.

Regarding "innocent until proven guilty," I have no prior connection with Cirt. I watched the Daryl Wine Bar incident, but did not participate, and turned up at the santorum RfC as he was leaving. To the best of my knowledge he's never addressed me and I've never addressed him. So I must rely on what was brought to that RfC and this one.

A very very solid case has been made by the certifiers of this RfC. It is my view that Cirt's defenders have failed to refute the vast majority of the certifier's claims, and all of the important claims. As if to prove that point, most of their contribution to this discussion and much of the RfCU consists of ad hominem argument. Where I come from, it is the job of the prosecution to prove its "charges." Though the "case" is still running, unless Cirt should choose to waive his right to silence, and can satisfactorily explain the highlighted behaviour, as things stand, he's looking "guilty."

The trouble is, I think it would be a mistake to imagine that, even if he did give some kind of informal vague undertaking here to try to improve, he would not take exactly the same behaviours into his new topic area. Given how he responds to impartial senior editor scrutiny, ArbCom is the right group for him to address with sepcific undertakings, drafted by them, and enforceable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the jury voting 2:1 to acquit if Cirt is so guilty? It looks like the authors of this RFC have tried too hard. They threw in everything, and created an unwieldy presentation that is less convincing than a concise one would be. Jehochman ^Talk 09:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be a fundamental flaw in the "jury" selection process here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-selected juries may, indeed, not be the same as "impartial juries." As for the 2 to 1 claim for total exoneration - one of the opinions supported appears to rest on especially considering that BLP was less malignant back in 2009., etc. obsessively demonizing lens of the RFC/U certifiers etc. do not redound to Cirt's benefit here. And the most popular defense states specifically: While Cirt's choices in editing BLPs may need review which is also hardly a ringing endorsement of Cirt wrt BLPs. The issue appears to be one of "too many charges" and not one of "Cirt is as innocent as a new born babe" on Wikipedia WRT BLP policies (other than one person who is opposed to WP:BLP as it now stands. Indeed, a majority of those "!voting" seem to agree that the BLP concerns are real and significant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It really looks like some of the participants tried very hard to put a negative spin on things that may have been mistakes or disagreements. The RFC would have been a lot more useful had that not been done. Cirt is a longstanding editor with many contributions recognized as high quality. Such an editor deserves a normal assumption of good faith. I am very concerned that this process has failed because editors started with a conclusion and then backfilled with arguments and evidence, rather than working the other way around. Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, with all due respect this is not the first time these issues have been aired. The reason we are at RFC/U is that people like yourself have run interference for Cirt in the past when these same issues have been raised. If this were the first time Cirt had been confronted with these problems I'd say great let's AGF, but that simply isn't the case. What he has done, instead of attempting to deal with problems raised about how he edits, is to change what he edits. These are no longer "mistakes" in other words. I agree with several users who have suggested here that Cirt needs to confront the issue head on instead of simply shrinking away from it. Everyone agrees that he has made many high quality contributions to the project. If he was capable of taking this criticism to heart and to edit with more balance in certain areas we'd all be better for it.Griswaldo (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I'm with you here. Changing what he edits won't solve things long-term, and while we can guess why he edits the way he does, it's not necessarily helpful or productive. Focusing on the how—where there are clear points of concern—is the most productive way forth.

I think it's fair to point out to an editor "How you edit and comment can lead a person to question why you edit, because it could be seen as such-and-so". Pointing out how an editor might be perceived is different from saying that one's perception of that editor is the truth. As WP:NPA#WHATIS says, "Serious accusations require serious evidence". It's easy to provide evidence of how an editor edits. It's very difficult to prove what's in their head to show why.

I'm not charging anyone with a personal attack here. On preview, I see how someone might see it that way. I'm merely pointing out that arguing the why of an editor's edits does have WP:NPA implications to be avoided, and WP:NPA may help guide our discussion.

At this point, I think that it's reasonable to say that how Cirt edited certain BLPs was contrary to the ideals of the project. I think "Innocent until proven guilty" still applies to why Cirt made those edits: there's plausible (if in some cases unlikely) alternative explanations for many of them that have yet to be completely disproven, so that's where I see AGF applying. If Anonymous put out a press release saying "Cirt is on our payroll" that would be one thing, but the why evidence is nowhere near that (admittedly absurd) level. It's circumstantial and inferential, which isn't "serious evidence". Given the findings in Noleander,[70] the behavioral accusations against Cirt could have serious consequences, so I think serious evidence is required there. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for consensus that how Cirt edited these articles is a cause for concern. There's definitely serious evidence there. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to look at the maths—to date, DGG's view has attracted 17 supports; plus there are two users, User:B and User:Wikid77, who endorsed the RfC/U summary as a whole, without endorsing individual views. 24 editors endorsed Macwhiz. --JN466 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Running interference for Cirt

I have monitored Cirt's editing for approximately 5 years, since he edited as User:Smee and was somewhat of a troublemaker, with a handful of blocks for edit warring. Part of our work here is to encourage editors to improve themselves. That is more important than handing out blocks or sanctions. What I would like to see is for this RFC to be refactored to remove a lot of the old and tangential content, so that it focused on a clear, concise set of editing weaknesses, and gave constructive criticism. That way Cirt could see how to improve. RFC is not merely a formality before you file arbitration and request sanctions on an editor. I think the Arbitration Committee would take a very dim view of any editors who take that approach (not saying anybody here is or isn't). This RFC has been a mess and could have been made more valuable with proper formulation and management.

From this moment I ask all editors here to assume good faith, to stop assuming you know what's going on inside somebody else's head; you don't. If you politely criticize and assume somebody is making a mistake, but in fact they are acting in bad faith, you will look good, and they will look bad. If you assert bad faith without having very strong proof, you look bad, and they get sympathy. That's the way things work. It is better to err on the side of assuming good faith.

I don't think anybody is running interference for Cirt. I certainly am not, and have no motivation to do so. Cirt isn't paying me. Cirt doesn't do any favors for me. We don't edit the same articles (I like submarines, military history, and astronomy). We've never met in real life. As far as I am concerned, Cirt is just another pseudonym used by a complete stranger. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, in various ANI and BLP noticeboard threads, I have pointed out many violations of our BLP policy by Cirt. Although Cirt has often corrected those violations when they are discussed, I have yet to see them acknowledge that any violation occurred. I recall Cirt using phrases such as "I have voluntarily removed this source". I do not claim to know what Cirt thinks, but I have always taken the use of "voluntarily" to mean "I don't have to do this, but I am". To me, Cirt has been given many opportunities to improve their improve their editing in BLP areas, but they have instead chosen to "voluntarily" limit their involvement in specific subject areas on terms that they have set for themselves. Since they are under no sanctions, I assume they are free to return to editing in those areas as they see fit. I am appalled that any editor has been allowed to continue editing BLPs with such a track record. That Cirt is also an admin makes it completely unacceptable. Your platitudes may have been reasonable a few years ago, but at this point they seem, to use your phrase, like you are running interference for Cirt. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman I can't care less about what your motivations are, or what's going on in your head. I've commented only on what you've done. It's in diffs here and elsewhere. I was, quite frankly shocked when I saw the link to Cirt's RfA, which I had not seen before. There you and Dorova were lobbying heavily for him (which is not a problem as long as you don't claim neutrality). Initially I only knew what you had done in some other more recent situations. Regarding all of these events I'm only commenting on what you "have done." The effect of your actions has been to interfere with attempts to reign in Cirt's problem editing. Your closure of this RfC, which now has been firmly established as out of process, was more of the same. It has nothing to do with your motives, but with your actions and the effects of those actions. You and/or others may believe what you want about the motives of someone who runs interference for someone else, but that's not a game I've ever played here. If you disagree I'd like to see diffs of that please - diffs of me impugning your motives. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Who provided the link to Cirt's RFA? Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that is relevant, but it was User:B I saw it when User:B linked to it in the section I started disputing your close (although as he has now pointed out YOU brought it up first yourself). Griswaldo (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm ... what? Jehochman is the one who first brought up Cirt's RFA into this with his "close" of the RFC - [71]. He seems to think that because pro-Scientology sockpuppets trolled Cirt's RFA, no good-faith criticism of Cirt's action is permitted. I'm not quite sure why you think it's odd that in objecting to a close where Jehochman mentions Cirt's RFA that I would mention the same RFA. --B (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its odd at all, and I'm sorry for missing the fact that he brought it up himself. I was merely going off of memory about where I had seen it and why I had checked it out myself. I agree with you 100%. What I do find odd, now that you have pointed this out, is that Jehochman wondered who linked to it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My point was that I originally linked to the RFA, which disclosed my past interactions with Cirt. (At the RFA those were Landmark Education sock puppets, not Scientology socks.) The thing to keep in mind is that we do not want to reward banned users, socks, or canvassed newbies who engage in a campaign to harass our editors. Cirt's situation involves legitimate criticism and possibly abusive criticism. The situation is complex, to say the least. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen any of that kind of behaviour (socking etc.) at this RfCU? And specifically, can you identify some instances of abusive ctiticism? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The first support of the authors view was signed by a sockpuppet User:SilentBlues of banned User:Access Denied. If we were to have a checkuser scrutinize the participants closely, I believe we might find others. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about that. I don't expect you to name them but roughly how many such problematic (sock/meat/SPA) editors do we have at this RfCU? And are they active or just !voting? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't gone sock hunting yet. At Cirt's RFA, 25% of the opposes were verified as socks. I doubt socks are writing RFC views, but they could be voting or instigating trouble and helping to intensify the dispute. If you want to help do an analysis, check for any participating accounts that are (1) recently registered or (2) have low numbers of contributions outside one or two specific topics. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well there's this editor with 59 edits over two years, but he's definitely not an SPA [72] and only bumped into Cirt once; and everyone else has more than 2000 edits. Some veteran editors have a strong interest in New Age stuff but you know all of them. You mentioned some of the criticism in this RfCU was constructive and some was abusive. Are there any particular instances of the latter you have in mind? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Cirt being the subject of an RFC before. If this one had been done correctly, your concerns would have been addressed and dealt with. Unfortunately, the hostile tone, the agglomeration of different disputes and long ago issues and the appearance of an emotional mob prevents the resolution of anything. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sir I'm sorry that John Doe stole your car last night and that there is irrefutable evidence of this theft. The thing is that since you didn't abide by my personal notions of decorum in my courtroom I'm going to have to throw all the evidence out and dismiss the case." That's essentially what you're saying and its absurd. If there is evidence of a problem we need to deal with the problem. Case closed. You're exemplifying exactly what you've been accused of doing, right now btw. Good job.Griswaldo (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best analogy, given that such things occur in real courts, but I don't think anyone's saying that the case should be dismissed, nor that reasonable and valid evidence be overlooked. I think Jehochman means that the manner in which this RfC/U has unfolded has unfortunately obscured the valid concerns with Cirt's editing, and that's hampering the process considerably. It's not practical, acceptable, or right to toss out this RfC/U and start over, but if it were possible, I'd like to think we'd all make a few different choices and we could proceed more smoothly and productively. That's a perfectly valid lament. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, to a large extent with your statement but I don't agree with your reading of Jehochman's post or with the legal analogy you extended. Hostile tone, the agglomeration of different disputes and long ago issues and the appearance of an emotional mob is a far cry from "prosecutorial misconduct," which actually has to do with breaking rules/laws. Hence why I used the term "decorum" in my own analogy. I also don't agree that this is a "lament" of some kind. Jehochman is not lamenting he's trying to influence people. He's saying that what has transpired prevents the resolution of anything thereby justifying a position that Cirt's problem editing does not need to be dealt with at this point. In other words, to use your analogy (which I find faulty) that there is a valid claim of prosecutorial misconduct here. I think this is the worst kind of conclusion we can ever reach during dispute resolution if we are trying to rationally deal with issues as they arise. One of the reasons why some of us have been so agitated on the talk page is precicely because the conduct of others (at Wikipedia review, in the past related to Cirt, etc.) has been continually trotted out as a justification for not taking our evidence seriously. That, in my view, is exactly what Jehochman is doing here again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you presented your evidence more concisely (just the best and most recent examples), and connected it with helpful suggestions of how Cirt could improve, I think you would get a lot more support from the community, and Cirt would get more value from the process. Perhaps it is worth creating versions 2.0 of this RFC with a better statement of the dispute and then restarting the discussion. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. This RfC/U process has worked well. Many elements of it could have been done better, not the least of which being the massive flood of ad hominem, and the inclusion of trivial charges, but, in the end, it has crystalised the issues around Cirt's editing quite well. All that's needed now is for Cirt to let us know which criticisms he accepts and which he repudiates. At present his only statement repudiates all criticism. If that's still his position, this needs to be addressed by AdbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Across the line

RFC is not for discussing third parties. Please don't do that further, Cla68. Thank you. Off topic evidence sections may be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't look like the section was "removed to the talk page". It looks like it was deleted and a footnote was added. It looks like censorship. It looks like Wikipedia "celebrities" don't have to follow the rules of Wikipedia and their Wikilawyers protect them. Njsustain (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of the deletion on Jehochman's talk page. To be honest I'm not sure if the section is proper or not, but I do know that Jehochman will only cause more drama by taking administrative actions at this RfC.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman that, since this is not a view on Cirt's conduct, it is more appropriate for this talk page. I've pasted it below. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a real life intrusion and had meant to post that, but could not do so easily with my mobile browser. The content below might be relevant to the upcoming arbitration case. Perhaps save and use it there. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the relevant RfC guidelines which says you can't have a section in the RfC commenting on reactions to the RfC. Perhaps this is so, because there has never been a previous RfC in which as many of the responders and commentators reacted with so many personal attacks, insults, and ad hominem accusations. As I said in that section, this kind of behavior is unnaceptable and needs to be identified for comment, if not corrective action. Once I complete the section below, I'll repost it to the RfC and invite endorsments and/or comments. The editors who made the comments shouldn't mind being held accountable for their actions, for if they did mind, why would they have said the things they said? Cla68 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

While WP:CIVILITY#Dispute resolution does say "During an RfC, scrutiny may be applied to all editors involved", I'm not sure that this is what was meant. While I definitely agree that there has been incivility here, I'd also point out WP:NPANPA and WP:FWF as worthwhile and applicable essays. I think that calling out specific editors for their behavior here is a distraction, and I think we've already got enough distractions from the topic at hand. Besides, better to wait and see what ArbCom does: if the case is accepted, I'm sure there will be fallout a-plenty for everyone. Believe me, I understand the frustration and the desire, and I'm not wholly unsympathetic; I'm just cautioning that it might wind up being counterproductive for you done this way at this time, Cla68. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're responding (even reacting) to a specific view, it's meant to be done on the talk page (this page) rather than on the main page. This is what is meant by "Any other types of discussion should be directed to the talkpage" (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance2). That said, you can provide a note under the endorsements section of that view - drawing attention to the fact that a response/comment was posted about a particular view on the talk page - and provide a link to where it is occurring on here. In the same way, third parties generally should not be roped into the RfC/U (it is a bit against the spirit of getting everyone to comment); that conduct is likely to cause just as much disputes as an unconventional close can (and when an arbitration is, likely, to be accepted anyway, that evidence is best left for that step in DR where something might actually come of it. Not saying that it will or will not in the arbitration which is likely to be opened, but I am saying little will come of it in the RfC/U). Recently, RfC/Us have not been quite so acrimonious as this one, but there have been some in the past which I can vaguely recall and...nothing came of it in the RfC/U itself. FWIW anyway, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The diffs that crossed the line

One thing that has surprised me since this RfC opened has been some of the pejorative comments and responses by editors who apparently disagree with its premise. I think it's perfectly fine for editors to disagree with the evidence and conclusions presented in this RfC. What isn't fine, however, is when those editors, beyond simply saying, "I disagree because..." engage in personal attacks, name calling, or disruptive editing towards other editors involved in this RfC. Njsustain's disappointment at the way he was treated when he objected to some of what has gone on, apparently permanently souring his perception of Wikipedia's editing experience, has struck a nerve in me. Editors need to know that these types of uncivil behaviors or comments are unnaceptable and will not be condoned or tolerated. In my opinion, the following comments/actions and editors who did them since this RfC opened crossed the line of acceptable behavior:

Raul654

• "I agree that we should not delete views/claims from an RFC, even when they are clearly fictitious. However, by the same token, I think there should be consequences for filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges, and this RFC would clearly qualify".

Sadads

• "The way in which various individuals have taken to trying to change Cirt's behaviour is extremely inappropriate and could have been handled with, for lack of a better way to describe the behaviour, more maturity".
• "Quite right Macwhiz, this has become personal because the approach to the treatment of Cirt has been degrading to all those involved in ways that hurts the culture of the project, which we are very much part of"

Prioryman (Note: This editor previously invoked "Right to vanish" when facing sanctions in an arbcom case, but apparently has somehow returned. This editor was previously involved in a Scientology-related dispute under one of his previous account names.)

• "After this RfC/U has failed, JN466 will continue pursuing Cirt until the community finally gets fed up and imposes an interaction ban on both of them"
• "It's becoming obvious, I think, that the aim is to get rid of Cirt or at the least to make it impossible for him to contribute without being hounded at every turn"
• "As for the evidence, I think it's plain that a lot of it has been trumped up or grossly exaggerated. Personally, if I was Cirt, I'd choose to ignore JN466's demands, which have a distinct "have you stopped beating your wife" air about them, and get on with improving Wikipedia. If you compare JN466's contributions (embedded link removed) and Cirt's contributions (embedded link removed) lately, there's not much doubt about which of them is making the more valuable contribution to this project. Perhaps JN466 should use his time for more useful purposes than continually going after Cirt?"
• "I also gather that you have been pursuing Cirt literally for years, which strikes me as an unhealthy obsession...I very much get the feeling that you have latched on to the Santorum controversy to advance your own long-running campaign against Cirt, and have recruited many of the partisans in that dispute (via the link to this RfC/U that you "helpfully" posted to the Santorum talk page). Given all of that, I am not inclined to take what you say at face value. There is too much of an air of vendetta and vindictiveness about this RfC/U. Certainly Cirt should review what people have said, but I don't think he has any obligation to bow to your demands."

Tarc

• "And you, Wnt, have been a part of this. A co-conspirator, accomplice, whatever colorful term we can find. You and many others, deliberately and royally fucking this place up by using it to further your personal ideological bent." (Of course, I appreciate Tarc supporting my position, but to be fair, this comment crosses the line).

Quigley

• "Cirt has not displayed the level of aggressive persistence in his views that many of his past enemies, who have come out of the woodwork to condemn him here, have shown. At every level of this recent dispute, he has voluntarily withdrawn into smaller and smaller areas in which to edit. The only goal left for his detractors seems to be to have him stop editing completely. This is the real story of bullying here."
• "How can we speak of the real issues surrounding Cirt in a coherent, unified manner? We cannot, because it is only the sheer force of rage and resentment among certain editors that holds them together."
• "Because while Ohms law and Macwhiz speak in hypotheticals about this RfC/U affecting them sometime in the future, the certifiers have already thrown a poisoned net over a broad range of users, or "enablers"—to use their dehumanizing language—, extending the scope of the crucifixion beyond Cirt to anyone who has stood up against his accusers. The "sides" are not a supplement from this discussion: they are the original sin of this RfC/U"
• "For many people jumping on the Cirt-hate dogpile, it seems that one's opinion of Cirt is more important than the points in this RfC/U."
• "these "pro-NRM" editors who are prosecuting the RfC/U against Cirt regard the RfC/U process as a manner of intimidating religious opponents instead of discussing and resolving disputes."

Throwaway85

• At the end of the day, I wouldn't be objecting to this RfC if the emails hadn't been released, nor would I be doing so if SlimVirgin didn't have a pretty clearly-defined history of using her power, connections, and Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes to attack, vilify, and ultimately silence editors with whom she disagrees. I'm not coming to Cirt's defence, but rather opposing what I see as an abuse of process by the queen of abuses of process."
• "I will not, however, be a party to an attempt by one of the most powerful, well-connected, and arguably unscrupulous people on Wikipedia to throw her weight around."

William M. Connolley

• "What you're actually doing is repeating an untruth in the hope that people might eventually believe it"

Will Beback

• Starts a section called "Jayen's sex life" and announces that he will, "Review the behavior of Jayen466, Cla466, and the other supporters of cults and new religious movements who've been involved in this"
• Will then begins a series of accusations against several editors, questioning their religious beliefs and motivations. He continues even after other editors tell him his comments are inappropriate: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]
• (more to come)

Above comments by Cla68, pasted from RfC/U page. `--Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

YouTube

One of the YouTube videos linked to in this discussion accuses a living person of child abuse. Can someone remind me if Cirt linked to or cited it in an article, please. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He embedded the YouTube video in the article. Readers could play it without leaving mainspace. [92]. --JN466 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-published YouTube videos hosted in Commons are cited for biographical information about the subject in the Aaron Saxton BLP. The first part of the 7-part video series was embedded; the other parts of the series were and are linked to in the Aaron_Saxton#References. --JN466 09:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I just watched the embedded Aaron Saxon vid and was very moved. I'm no expert on EL policy but, as it's clearly his testimony, I don't see an in principle problem with us linking to it on his BLP. Embedding the Alexandria video in Mace-Kingsley_Ranch_School, containing a hearsay accusation of rape against a named living person is not right. This is all so conflicting. I so understand Cirt's motives in all of this. But I presume he has no idea whether that claim is valid and therefore there is a significant possibility he just used Wikipedia to spread a defamation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. But we do have a WP:BLPSPS policy and WP:ELBLP, and we cannot pick and choose to whom they should apply and to whom they should not. I agree that the Saxton video was a less significant policy breach than the school video, but the correct way to handle such content is simply to add a sister link to Commons rather than embed the video in mainspace. Otherwise Wikipedia mainspace becomes a platform for personal views. It's something that we would not tolerate with any other school, or religion. For example, I believe we would not embed a sexual abuse victim's YouTube testimony in our article on sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church, regardless of how moving it was, or embed YouTube videos of individuals critical of islam in Islam, or embed a YouTube video with personal recollections of teaching staff's cruelty in our article on any other school or university. --JN466 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a case could be argued for including the Saxton vids in the EL of Aaron Saxton, and maybe for embedding one in the article. But I'm not going to have that argument. I'm just making the point that this is a trivial probable/possible breach of EL policy, whereas embedding a video that asserts a named living person raped somebody is possibly criminal and certainly breaches WP:BLP in the worst possible way, as I understand that policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I didn't spend the whole ten minutes watching the Mace-Kingsley Ranch School video and I skimmed it instead, but I'm not finding the "named living person". What's the timecode where that occurs? I saw a statement of rumors about an unnamed person committing sexual assault, which is pretty durn iffy but not OMG-BLP. However, it shouldn't have been added, because it involves claims about third parties and it involves claims about events not directly related to the subject. Those two things make it fail WP:BLPSPS. (While that video is right out per the rules, I will say that the young lady seems to give impressively neutral testimony about her experiences, all things considered.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at those sps used as citations and I am in two minds to remove them. I think they need removing, I really do. I can't see any reason that its correct or necessary to cite a couple of lines of personal comments to (over an hour) six or seven self published anti scientolgy soapboxing utube videos. Also please note - if you look on the talkpages of the videos that were uploaded by User:Cirt you will find the transcript of the tape - uploaded by User:Cirt from the http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/aaron-saxton-interview-vids-transcripts.50481/ - why we protest Anonymous (group) - The same group that User:Cirt's political editing supported the campaigns of. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I just watched that video in its entirety, and there is no accusation made against any living person. Please be very careful when making criticism to check the facts. This is the sort of thing that makes people not trust the evidence presented in the RFC. If I check an assertion and find out that it is completely false, I am going to think that the other assertions might also be false. If you have a good case to make, choose a few of your best pieces of evidence. Don't throw in too much, and especially don't include evidence or statements that are obviously false! This is the sort of thing that could get filers of the RFC sanctioned for WP:BATTLE. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You're right. Nothing there. I watched this a few days ago and saw that it is part 1 of 2 so went to part 2. I conflated them in my mind as one video. Sorry about that. (I was wondering why everyone was so relaxed about it!) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can't fault you on that one... Lord knows we all could use CliffsNotes On Cirt's RfC/U at this point... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cirt did create a page at Commons containing both videos and put an external linked to it at the bottom of the Mace-Kingsley Ranch School article, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Socks?

Jehochman, these are the main endorsers of the RfC/U (those who supported DGG's view, Macwhiz' additional view and/or Griswaldo's view, plus two who only endorsed the RfC/U as a whole and did not endorse individual views):

1. User:DGG abusefilter, sysop, OTRS, 86944 edits since: 2006-09-05
2. User:Pieter Kuiper 3655 edits since 2007-02-26, long-time Commons contributor
3. User:Off2riorob reviewer, OTRS, 69044 edits since: 2008-12-03
4. User:Griswaldo 6731 edits since: 2010-01-27
5. User:Jayen466 accountcreator, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 35430 edits since: 2006-04-18
6. User:Quigley 3932 edits since: 2010-07-12 (did not support the RfC/U overall, despite endorsing DGG's view)
7. User:Rocksanddirt reviewer, rollbacker, 5512 edits since: 2007-06-14 (is wearing socks now!)
8. User:ResidentAnthropologist reviewer, 6519 edits since: 2010-09-17 (plus 4369 edits since: 2006-06-06 on a previous account that was hacked into)
9. User:SlimVirgin sysop, 116939 edits since: 2004-11-05
10. User:Richwales reviewer, rollbacker, 5785 edits since: 2005-03-06
11. User:Collect reviewer, 17331 edits since: 2006-01-24
12. User:Cla68 autoreviewer, reviewer, 39194 edits since: 2005-10-05
13. User:Nolelover reviewer, rollbacker, 6138 edits since: 2008-05-13
14. User:Littleolive oil reviewer, 12795 edits since: 2006-12-12
15. User:Anthonyhcole reviewer, 8541 edits since: 2006-04-16
16. User:Kanguole rollbacker, 11423 edits since: 2007-10-13
17. User:Eluchil404 sysop, 9998 edits since: 2006-03-02
18. User:Macwhiz 2632 edits since: 2010-08-17
19. User:Khazar autoreviewer, 14420 edits since: 2006-01-08
20. User:THF reviewer, 17060 edits since: 2006-03-25
21. User:Njsustain 3703 edits since: 2008-03-24
22. User:B sysop, 49404 edits since: 2006-04-22
23. User:Wikid77 autoreviewer, 30598 edits since: 2006-05-09

Not one of these looks like an obvious sock to me. I don't see any plausible socks among the rest of the people who have participated to date either; my feeling is this RfC/U has been sock-clean, apart from the one you found earlier. --JN466 15:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Scientology and Scientology Portal symbol

A tangent re Scientology symbols with no useful information for the RFC

This is a bit of a tangent, but since Cirt (as Smee) was responsible for creating the project page in that form, I will go ahead and ask here. Why is the symbol of Wikiproject Scientology and the Scientology Portal an e-meter? Most wikiprojects relating to religion use the symbol associated with that religion. In the case of Scientology, that would be the Scientology cross. Why use a questionable pseudo-scientific device as the symbol? This has puzzled me for a while, but I've never bothered to look into it until now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps because the Scientology cross is (I assume) a registered trademark of the CoS, and its use would have to be subject to fair-use policies (which, IIRC, prohibit the use of non-free images outside the main Wikipedia article space). Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC) That doesn't seem to be an issue on the main Scientology article, or even on Scientology versus the Internet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC) But those are articles in the main space. And even there, the use of a non-free image is supposed to be documented with a "non-free media use rationale" for each article in which it appears. Take a look at File:Scientology_Cross_Logo.png, and you'll see two such rationales (though the one for Scientology versus the Internet is currently missing — an omission which really ought to get fixed). As for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, that isn't an article in the main space, so non-free images simply can't be used there, period. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)It's also worth considering that Scientology has historically been noted for its—how to say it—enthusiastic approach to defending its intellectual property rights. I would certainly understand anyone taking a very conservative approach to using the organization's trademarked logo. The E-meter may not be the official symbol of Scientology, but it is inextricably linked with the group, so it's not an absurd choice. (I'm mentally calling this the "ten-foot pole defense"...) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the problem lies with my assumption that e-meters must be an embarrassment, but that likely isn't true for Scientologists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I don't know why you would think this an inappropriate symbol. Surely it's no more embarrassing than using a menorah as a symbol for Judaism? (If the Star of David was copyrighted and trademarked, we would certainly have to do that.) I bet the Scientologists don't regard the e-meter as "a questionable pseudo-scientific device" any more than Jews regard the menorah as an awkwardly shaped and unnecessarily redundant candlestick. Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I think that's pretty much what I said immediately above your statement, but I think an opinion from an actual Scientologist might be helpful here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Rich, I misunderstood your comment. I would think that even a picture of L Ron Hubbard would be a more neutral image than an e-meter, but I am sure someone could think of a better symbol that doesn't have non-free image issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I agree. Unless there are objections, I propose we add fair-use rationales for the Portal template and project page and swap the image. --JN466 18:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Absolutely not. You are, frankly, showing a worrying lack of understanding of what WP:NFCC requires. There's no doubt that NFCC applies; I've just looked up the Scientology cross on the USPTO database; it's trademarked 1973 and 1984, so is obviously still an active trademark and still in copyright. Fair-use images may only be used for the purposes of analysis and commentary. Portals and templates are not works of analysis and commentary - they are merely navigational assets. Fair use images must not be used for such purposes. See NFCC criterion 9: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." I strongly advise you from going ahead with this change, since it is so clearly not allowed. Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Aren't article "portals" and article "templates" for the purpose of helping people analyze and comment on a subject? This idea that it doesn't apply simply because someone made it easier to MAINTAIN the navigation is silly. The navigation is provided within each article and is displayed only within articles. You are, frankly, showing a narrow understanding of what WP:NFCC requires. -- Avanu (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC) No, portals and templates are navigational elements only. NFCC #9 is absolutely clear: fair-use content may only be used in articles and only in article namespace. There is no wriggle room there. I've come across that issue myself in my own little corner of the wiki (DYK). I'm not the one who sets the policy; if you object to it, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Prioryman (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC) OK, done. -- Avanu (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Unilaterally attempting to make major changes to legal policies in a bid to win an argument is a very bad idea. Please don't do that again. Prioryman (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I guess you forget that nothing is unilateral in Wikipedia, but whatever. To me, something 'included' in an article becomes part of that article, so in some ways we're just arguing semantics. If a nav or portal template were manually included in each article in question, there would be no argument anymore. The problem is just one of application, not a legal issue. The change I made specifically said for templates that were only included in other articles. Simple... and its been changed back for now, so please get a grip, and understand how Consensus and Bold work. -- Avanu (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Fortunately, policies on copyright are written by people who understand what copyright law requires - consensus doesn't apply and boldness isn't helpful where legal issues are concerned. Now please move on. Prioryman (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Well, you were already wrong once, so I'm sure it might happen again. The problem here is that it should be simple to just swap out an appropriate image that otherwise meets NFCC guidelines (but it isn't). An acceptable alternative might simply be no logo at all, but the e-meter sounds like a nice compromise by whoever did it. -- Avanu (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, what on earth does any of this have to do with RFC/Cirt? "A bit of a tangent?" If Christopher Columbus had actually sailed off the edge of the Earth while on his way to "India," that would be a bit of a tangent on par with this one. I've been following this distasteful business in silence (your collective patience astounds me), but if this is now turning into, "Hey, let's assume all of this person's editorial choices are bogus now!", you are seriously reaching. That is the impression I get from the choice of this group to suddenly run off on a wild goose chase at NFCC. If there is actually a problem with using an e-meter as a helpful picture on a portal template, either show us why Cirt should have seen it as a problem, or take it someplace else. This topic is already dreadfully crowded. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes it so hard for some editors to take this RFC seriously even while they know they should: if this is worth your time to write about here, then it just looks like there's no here here. Those who have brought this RFC have pointed out a number of problems with Cirt's edits; this, by contrast, is flummery. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 04:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC) It is merely something that I wondered about (again) when following one of the links posted in the RfC. It has very little to do with the RFC/U, but I have found these issues cannot be productively discussed elsewhere since they are inevitably overrun with disruptive comments so I thought I would ask where the question might be seriously considered. As I said, it was a tangent and got muddled quite quickly. It was not intended to be an attack on Cirt or a suggestion that this should be part of the RfC. If I had intended that this question be part of the RfC, I would not have phrased it in the form of a question nor would I have posted it on the talk page. If someone wants to move this somewhere else to continue the discussion, I have no objection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Macwhiz' additional view

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Additional_view_by_macwhiz_on_how_Cirt_edits does a good job of summarising the main concerns. My only quibble is that it should have mentioned the Sharron Angle article as well. --JN466 12:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

I came across this 2008 edit to Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography today, which reminded me of the Joshua Gunn edit in the santorum article.

Cirt: In his review, Dave Shiflett called Tom Cruise "a top-gun Scientologist who is up to no good" ...

Source: Tom Cruise is much more than one of the world's pre-eminent celebrities, according to Andrew Morton's unauthorized biography. He's a top-gun Scientologist who is up to no good. Unlike celebrities such as Bono and Bob Geldof, who merely want to change the world by fighting poverty and similar scourges, Mr. Cruise "is part of an organization that wants to conquer the planet." ...

It's a bit old, but it's the same thing: just like the Gunn edit put words in Gunn's mouth, this one put words into Shiflett's mouth. That edit stood for more than three years, until today. --JN466 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise Purple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was an article we had on the main page last year. It's kind of similar to the Santorum thing. What do you think? --JN466 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• -Tom Cruise Purple - I googled this and I was amazed (not) to find this Anonymous why we protest chat thread in regard to the drug - the thread seems to havstarted on March 18 2010 - the first post on the Anonymous (group) chat thread is a link to our article. - User:Cirt started editing/expanding the article in this diff at/on 02:52, March 17, 2010- the idea that the chat thread and the article expansion are unconnected would imo need to be a blind leap of faith. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• - As for the article written by User:Cirt - imo it looks like a cited attack by the back door on a Scientology person that is from another search engine return - strongly opposed to drugs. - On the front page - really? - was it here? - over eight thousand views - the current viewing figures show its real value - ten a day - a half them will be bots and the other half internal views. - Article was written by - User:Cirt - anti Scientology activism attack content in regard to a BLP subject massively expanded and promoted on our front page by User:Cirt, a pattern of editing that is repeated and indisputable. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cirt clearly was not responsible for starting the article - Kevin92wiki (talk · contribs) wrote the first version nearly a year before Cirt got involved.[93] It seems to be notable enough, judging from the sources. The article would most likely survive AfD, in my view, and it certainly can't be classed as any kind of personal attack. The link with Anonymous looks tenuous to me - the first post in that thread is responding to Cirt's expansion of that article the day before (without mentioning Cirt), not preceding it. Given that chronology I can see no good reason to suppose that Anonymous had any role in it. This seems, frankly, like yet more speculation based on assumed bad faith. Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• User:Cirt expanded the article overnight from 800 bytes to 11,000 bytes - There is no need for bad faith - with User:Cirt's contribution history it is unnecessary, such assertions do not need bad faith - in fact, not to see an issue requires poking your eyes out. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, he expanded the article. So what? Is that a crime now? Prioryman (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - its another clear example of editing patterns that - User:Cirt has repeatedly and for an extended period of time and whilst held to the higher standard that is expected of an administrator, edited the Wikipedia in support of the Anonymous (group)'s off Wikiipedia activism and the off Wikipedia campaigns of that group against living people that are the subjects of WP:BLP articles. - primarily anti Scientology activism/campaigns in violation of core wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• What evidence do you have that Anonymous had any interest in "Tom Cruise Purple" before Cirt started editing it? What evidence is there that Anonymous had any involvement of any kind at any time in the development of the article? It seems to me that you are making completely unsupported assumptions and leaps of faith. From what I've seen so far, this has been a recurrent pattern with many of the accusations against Cirt. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• You would have to be a blind/deaf/dumb person or an Anonymous (group) supporter not to see a clear connection between User:Cirt's on wikipedia contributions and the off wikipedia campaigns of Anonymous (group) - Multiple users accept this to be indisputable. On wiki editing for an off wiki activist groups campaigns - simple and indisputable, Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Evidence-free assertions do not become fact by virtue of you insisting that they are so. You clearly don't need evidence to convince you that Cirt is a bad guy. Those of us who have a more open mind aren't so willing to assume guilt without any evidence to back it up. Prioryman (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is precisely that it is a BLP issue. It would be very different if it was a chat group for railroad fanatics and after someone suggested it online Cirt went ahead and expanded Armored train Hurban. The problem is that expanding articles like Tom Cruise Purple and getting it front page exposure is a way to attack Tom Cruise, and not simply to expand the encyclopedia. We absolutely cannot tolerate people making back door attacks on living subjects period. That it supports the agenda of an office cite group makes it worse. You can deny the pattern Prioryman, but its pretty obvious to many others. Evidence is exactly what is being presented and simply calling it something else or denying that it exists wont make it go away.Griswaldo (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Don't you see that you've got the chronology the wrong way round? Cirt expanded it the day before an Anonymous poster commented on it. This is merely an example of someone noticing Cirt's work after he had expanded that article. Your analogy doesn't work, as nobody appears to have "suggested online" that Cirt or anyone else should expand the article. Considering that the thread cited wasn't even started until after the article had been expanded, there is clearly no evidence of any "suggestion" going on. This is sheer factual carelessness. Prioryman (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are other examples, like the political articles, that fit that exact mold. What this particular example shows is the connection between Cirt's editing and that forum in a slightly different way. However, also please note that much more of his expansion came a few days later, and obviously the main page promotion did as well. Does it really matter if someone else directly suggested that he attack a BLP or if he took the initiative to do it himself, in line with the wishes of the group? Especially since at other times it appears that suggestions have been effective.Griswaldo (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's not evade the questions I raised. You said above that Cirt expanded the article after someone from Anonymous suggested it. Where is your evidence of this, since the thread was not started until after Cirt expanded the article? I've read the thread in question. It doesn't contain a single suggestion, just silly comments about Tom Cruise. If someone comments on an article, how does that constitute a "connection"? Do you have any evidence that Cirt has ever posted to that forum or is even aware of what its users are saying? Do you have any evidence that Cirt and Anonymous have any link at all? Prioryman (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's not put words in the mouths of people OK? I never said any such things. What I said was, "[t]hat it supports the agenda of an office cite group." I never said this example shows that it was suggested in advance. I'll let other people answer the new question you are asking. I think it's pretty obvious that when Wikipedia's most prolific anti-Scientology editor puffs up obscure political articles after it is suggested by the internet's most prolific anti-Scientology group that there is a connection there. When people give you more conclusive evidence will you evade the answer, like you're evading the other answers here?Griswaldo (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I take your point - you were implying it rather than saying it outright. However, can you provide any examples of any articles that were "suggested" for expansion by Anonymous? Where are the forum posts "suggesting" articles for expansion? And please provide specific links to these posts. Prioryman (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• No I wasn't even implying it. You jumped to some kind of unfounded conclusion. I have a hard time discussing things with people who are being disingenuous. It's an easy mistake to make in the heat of the moment but own up to it please. Regarding you other question, I'll happily admit that "suggesting to puff up" is probably too strong. What the evidence shows is that certain candidates were favored by the group, that this was made known and that Cirt afterwards worked to puff up and get exposure for the entries for those candidates. Do you really need the links provided here again?Griswaldo (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I'll acknowledge that I may have misinterpreted your meaning. I'll also acknowledge that it's clear that certain political candidates were favoured by posters to Anonymous forums and that Cirt worked on articles about certain political candidates. What I am not clear about is whether there is any clear causative link. As I asked earlier, is there any evidence that Cirt has ever interacted with Anonymous forums? Are there no alternative explanations, such as that the candidates might have been in the news shortly before Cirt edited their articles? I recall the fact that his expansion of the Santorum article was clearly correlated with that article being given sudden massive prominence by Jon Stewart. That suggests to me that his expansion of articles is influenced by media events, which would make sense given that he's a contributor to Wikinews (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure I read that somewhere in this mess). My point is that you should be considering more possibilities than simply a hypothetical link to Anonymous which nobody has come close to proving. Prioryman (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Your position that User:Cirt's edits here are independent of Anonymous (group) and its specified campaigns is according to this and other connected contributions, just unbelievable/ridiculous. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Would you care to comment on the major factual problem I have pointed out, rather than blustering? Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• The edit patterns and associated issues are clearly laid out earlier in the discussion - shall I post them again? Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please answer my question. Where and when did anyone from Anonymous comment on the article before Cirt edited it? Prioryman (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See my answer above. It doesn't matter at all. Examples of that are already out there. This example shows Cirt possibly taking his own initiative to attack BLPs in line with the wishes of the group.Griswaldo (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@Prioryman - *....you seem to assert that .... User Cirt has never even heard of the anti Scientology off wiki activist group anonymous and is just happily editing from a npov position....and the off wiki group is just blindly commenting on User:Cirt's anti Scientology article expansion, perhaps your right, but I would need to poke my eyes out to agree with you - all the User:Cirt's edit history disagree with you.Off2riorob (talk)

The difference between me and you is that I'm not asserting anything. I'm going by hard evidence, not assumptions and speculation. Consider the hard evidence here. We have three facts: 1) Cirt expanded the article on March 17, 2010; 2) an Anonymous poster noted the expansion on March 18; 3) five more posts were made on that thread on March 18, all of them trivial comments. That is the only hard evidence that exists here. If you want to assert that Cirt was acting on a suggestion by Anonymous, you need to provide evidence that such a suggestion was made. If you want to assert that Cirt was responding to the Anonymous thread, you have to demonstrate that he was aware of it, or that any of his edits were influenced by it. If you had any evidence on either of those points, I think you would have provided it by now. I don't see how such claims can be taken seriously, quite honestly. I have to say that your constant refusal to answer my questions speaks for itself, and I'll leave the matter there as an object lesson to other readers. Prioryman (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@Prioryman - * - you do know that on the anonymous activist chat threads commenters have mentioned how they helped User:Cirt in Anonymous (group) campaigns against living people...Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not exaggerate - only one commentator, and other editors on this talk page have noted how that has been misrepresented by JN466. I think macwhiz summed it up well under #Quotation of Anonymous forum postings above. I see no point in re-arguing that issue, since it will no doubt discussed in the arbitration case (and I expect it will cut both ways). Prioryman (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is amusing how you requested removal User_talk:Prioryman#Please_take_me_off_the_list - from the arbitration request but yet you are here going on about it. The arbitration case will remove all the opinionated blind commenters, I support that completely - any uninvolved neutral assessor will be unable to ignore the edit patterns - bring it on. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I don't edit those articles and I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are (well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously). The reason I'm commenting on this particular issue is because in your rush to judgement I see you making very obviously flawed claims. I'd like you to slow down and think more objectively about what you are saying, in particular taking more care to provide hard evidence of your claims. If you're going to accuse other editors of wrongdoing then the least you can do is to make a case based on factually accurate evidence rather than supposition and misrepresentations. Right now there seems to be a lynch mob mentality and I dislike that intensely. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the User:Cirt and the Anonymous (group) discussion forum is indisputable, the User:Cirt has uploaded things from the chat forum to this Wikipedia/Commons. Here is the transcript at Commons that User:Cirt uploaded from http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/aaron-saxton-interview-vids-transcripts.50481 the why we protest anonomous web forum. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhm most of us don't edit those articles. I don't get your point. RA made a big mistake naming the RFA "Cults" if you ask me. Almost everyone commenting here and there seems aware of that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to be where everything kept leading back too. Not an optimum title indeed, I personally like Sir Fozzies' "Feuds" title cause that part of the root of this mess personal feuds between editors and off-wiki opponents that have caused collateral damage to BLPs and integrity of Wikipedia as a whole.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Feuds" captures it in a nutshell. I gather this has been going on for, what, two and a half years now? Or so someone said, somewhere in this wall of text. Prioryman (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, Cirt's editing has garnered him attention from alot of people the major difference is Jayen contrary to others has not been COI-agenda editor or sock puppet. Cirt's behavior was tolerated for a long time because the other CoS editors where being worse than him. Cirt still acts in simple contents disputes as if he is in that edit warrior mode as if he has to defend the article from CoS Socks. Jayen cuts to the chase and know his stuff in that topic area so the conflict was natural. Jayen has made some mistakes but that doesnt mean his concerns arent genuine. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly shocked This "Tom Cruise Purple" is one those Scientology related things that I find hard to really take in good faith. Cirt's Scientology obsession is and has been well known among many editors which did create tons of good (but unflattering) content. There is no reason I can think of Cirt choosing to fluff for no apparent reason other than it's a slam on Scientology Frontman Tom Cruise. It's because of these bizarre topics come up that shows obvious evidence of Scientology obsession went too far and has harming the project. This is the type of thing I expect extremists in WP:ARBPIA or WP:ARBR&I editors to "WP:COATRACK up" in order to bash the other side. This NOT something I expect of Admins and something that is really new low for Cirt in my book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Tom Cruise Purple was taken to BLP/N by another admin, Athaenara (talk · contribs), shortly after it ran on the main page. Athaenara judged it a WP:COATRACK: [94], [95], [96], Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive82#Tom_Cruise_Purple. Just one outside editor, User:Shell Kinney, commented, and only minor changes resulted from the thread. There was some prior discussion of the hook as well: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_55#Tom_Cruise_Purple. --JN466 06:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So I took a look at this article by doing a diff that spans the substantive edits Cirt made.[97] Now bear with me as I explain my train of thought. I tried looking at this diff ignoring that it was Cirt that made the edits: Were the edits themselves objectionable in isolation? Well, the incident of the release of this strain was all over the news for a brief period in 2008, so there's a plethora of RSes. The lede, "Cannabis strain", and "Legal response" are all written reasonably neutrally.

I'm more troubled by the "Commentary" section, mostly because it's a quote farm. The thing is, most of the quotes seem to mock the story itself more than they mock Cruise—well, I should say, any more than Cruise was otherwise being mocked in 2008. Let's not forget that in the few months previous, his Scientology speech leaked,[98] the movie Valkyrie was (for a while) told it couldn't shoot in Germany because of Cruise's religion,[99], and his relationship with Katie Holmes was all over the news with too many links to bother posting. It's fair to say that Cruise received a good deal of ridicule in 2008. So, while there's a lot of ridicule here, I don't think it's cut-and-dried that it exceeds WP:WELLKNOWN or that it constitutes a particular attack on Cruise.

But then that last paragraph sort of takes the "he's litigious" meme a bit far.

And what the heck is a Usenet post doing in there as a reference?[100] Okay, now that is a problem. I also don't think I'd choose to include a quote from Gawker on general principles, but especially not a one-liner from a link farm filed under "Gossip Roundup",[101] one that just links back to the NY Daily News article.[102]

I was able to use my library's Gale Cengage service to verify the Toronto Star quote; it's a one-liner in a snarky entertainment column of one-liners. The quote from A.J. Hammer on CNN is slightly incorrect, but also missing context I would have included. Compare the diff[103] to the actual quote:

HAMMER: And look at this. You can now roll up Tom Cruise and smoke him. That`s right. Marijuana is being sold called "Tom Cruise Purple." I`ve got to tell you, Tom is not laughing, to be blunt. But will there be a joint investigation or is this just a token effort - you know, a half-baked idea. And are you kidding me? That`s coming up.[104]

Okay, so if this were done by Generic Q. Editor, I would have some issues with the edits. There's a misrepresented quote, there's some extremely questionable sources, and there's some undue stuff.

But what about the context of it being Cirt making these edits? Well, this is undeniably a Scientology-related article, and Cirt did say he would "shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general" in December 2010.[105] Taken as part of Cirt's editing pattern previously established, it does tend to increase the general ridicule of Scientology. But... Cirt's edits to this article were made between March and October 2010. So, I have to conclude that the Scientology-related angle is a dead issue for this article, one that has already been resolved. In the meantime, no one's tagged the article or made substantial changes to it.

Does it show that Cirt has had a pattern, as recently as last October, of making bad editorial choices on Scientology articles? Yes. Should it be used as a further example of the sort of thing he should avoid? Sure.

Should it be held forth as a ground for any sort of sanction now? I'm inclined to say no, because he was already called out on pro-Scientology edits and hasn't edited this article since he promised to back off. That's not to say that there may not be other articles which would show he hasn't backed off after all; just that this isn't such an example. However, it's clear that Cirt's edits contravened Remedy 8(C) of the ArbCom Scientology case from May 2009, and that if this had been caught in a timely fashion, an uninvolved administrator would have been justified in applying a discretionary sanction topic-banning Cirt from Scientology. Heck, it could still technically be done, but I am not sure whether it would be helpful or punitive at this point.

Does this show Cirt acted in concert with Anonymous? No. While one may be suspicious that the Anonymous posting was made near the time Cirt edited the article—and without a timezone stamp on the Anonymous posting, I can't be positive which one came first—there's nothing clearly linking Cirt to the Anonymous postings (which are, after all, anonymous). One possibly-close timestamp could be a coincidence; show me a long-term pattern of Cirt edits corresponding with Anonymous posts linking to Wikipedia articles and I'll start smelling smoke. I do not say that Cirt's edits are independent of Anonymous; I say that this article does not show a clear link between the two in any fashion. Besides, I don't think it's necessary to reach for a link to Anonymous to find a course of action here. Connection or no, we've got Remedy 8(C). I guess the real question is, if there's such a pattern here, why hasn't it been applied yet? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since Cirt was the subject of a request for enforcement in December,[106] I wouldn't think it likely that further action as a result of this one article would be taken. However, if there's evidence of the same behavior occurring after the request closed on 18 December 2010, that would likely be grounds to request enforcement, especially given the prior case. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you see parallels here to Cirt's expansion of the santorum neologism article? --JN466 10:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To Jayen's point (I think) let's remember the how he edits vs. what he edits distinction. It is true that this was prior to the self-imposed limitation when it comes to Scientology, but that brings home the point if he has still edited in a similar way, in different topic areas after that time. The problem isn't that he edits Scientology related entries, the problem is how he edited some of them. If he can't reform the how I'm afraid he'll continue to edit in this manner in other areas as well. I for one believe the Santorum example is quite similar, for instance.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Griswaldo. Neither what nor why are truly vital where the how is clearly an issue. I haven't the time to re-examine Cirt's santorum edits with an eye toward this particular pattern, but if similar examples of individual inexplicable edits are present, then I would say two things: It would establish an overarching issue with how Cirt edits, and it would indicate that the editing issues are not necessarily motivated by Scientology. If—if—Cirt makes poor choices about sources, inclusion of POV material, misleading quotes, etc. in a range of topics that are not clearly linked, it's more likely that there's some fundamental misconception of editing practices on Cirt's part than that Cirt is maliciously partisan. But it doesn't matter, because we criticize the edit and not the editor. If the POV-pushing is a result of individual editing choices that are each questionable, or because of an aggregate set of edits that are as a whole contrary to the rules, then we can focus on fixing that behavior; without unwittingly delving into psychoanalysis. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was inspired by this particular thread to write my first Wikipedia essay: WP:What were you thinking? In the spirit of the essay: Cirt, you're an experienced editor, and so I can't understand why you would add a USENET a.r.s post to an article as a reference, never mind this post to this article under these circumstances. I assume you had a reason, but I can't figure it out, so I have to ask: When you did this, what were you thinking? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Cruise 2

For reference, Cirt is the main contributor to the following articles related to Tom Cruise:

• ScienTOMogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tom Cruise Purple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK)
• Trapped in the Closet (South Park) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)#Tom_Cruise_parody)
• Being Tom Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK)
• Miles Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK x 2)
• Tom Cruise: Unauthorized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tom Cruise: All the World's a Stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Blown for Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK)
• Michael Doven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Knight and Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lions for Lambs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't see any contributions to articles on Cruise films that were well received, like Jerry Maguire or Top Gun. --JN466 20:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Similar cases related to Werner Erhard include The Wiz (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and most everything else in Template:Est_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture. --JN466 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just Cruise

In the already linked request for arbitration enforcement, I brought up the example of the truly farcical number of negative reviews added by Cirt to Knight and Day (a movie starring Tom Cruise). Although Cirt had done similar things with Battlefield Earth (film), it really is hard to find someone with a positive view of that movie. Today I came across another example of a similar type of "hit piece" on someone who Cirt believes is associated with the Church of Scientology. The Marriage Ref is a show created by Jerry Seinfeld. Until quite recently, Seinfeld was inappropriately included in List of Scientologists as a former Scientologist. This diff will show that Cirt belived Seinfeld to be a Scientologist at least as recently as June 2010.

Take a look at the "Critical reception" section added by Cirt in a long series of edits. I'm certain that all of the quoted phrases appear in the actual reviews, but this is a clear case of cherry-picking the worst possible comments. There is no need to have a full four paragraphs of negative comments. Quoting Hulu commentators saying the show is "worse than AIDS" is not something I would expect from a Wikipedia admin. All this less than a month after the program first aired.

It is possible that there is no connection between this hatchet job and Cirt's belief that Seinfeld is connected to Scientology, but placed in the context of the Cruise criticisms, it looks like there may be a pattern here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The bad reviews for The Marriage Ref can't be blamed on Cirt - that show was panned by critics. Speaking of patterns, how many comments about Cirt have you posted to Wikipedia Review?   Will Beback  talk  05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Although Cirt had done similar things with Battlefield Earth (film), it really is hard to find someone with a positive view of that movie." I looked at that article just now and did see one paragraph discussing positive reviews (the second-to-last paragraph in the "Critical reception" section), but I agree that the bulk of the article is firmly negative. Indeed, I'm a bit surprised that this article was felt to be neutral enough to make WP:FA. This may bring up a point made earlier — how do you write a truly neutral article when there are few independent, reliable secondary sources, and/or when virtually all of the suitable sources promote one view (whether "pro" or "anti")? If all the usable sources go one way, does that mean the article satisfies WP:NPOV (on the grounds that it does fairly present all significant, verifiable views)? Can the neutrality of such an article be validly challenged without managing to find suitable sources on the other side? Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)And if critics dislike a tv show, we here at Wikipedia collect up the worst quotes we can find to create a four paragraph long "critical reception" section less than a month after it debuts? You see nothing unusual about that? Good luck trying to deflect this one, Will. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the amount of material on TV shows in Wikipedia. But it's not clear that this qualifies as any kind of policy violation.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Marriage Ref was already an embarrassing hatchet job when Cirt got there. All he did, if I've read the diffs correctly, is shuffle the deckchairs a bit, add "Users rating the program on the Hulu.com service tagged it with phrases, "NBC Fail", "Terrible", "Unfunny", "Failure", "Seinfeld Sells Out", and "Worse than AIDS", which is a little bit OTT, and add a well-written and seemingly factual analysis of the ratings. I think the tone is pretty neutral in the current version. It depicts a generally negative critical reception without obviously "joining in." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. This is how the article looked before Cirt got there. This is the edit in which Cirt adds the initial "Critical reception" section. I suggest you start there and go through the next several edits to see that section evolve as Cirt adds to it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Bugger. I thought I'd got to the earliest Cert edit in that history page. You're right. It was a hatchet job, and perpetrated by Cirt. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the current version of that article is a lot better. Looking at User:Cirt/DYK, Cirt seems to have written 7 DYKs on Tom Cruise. Two of the hooks mentioned Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, and another one was for Being_Tom_Cruise ("The Church of Scientology Presents: Being Tom Cruise, Why Scientology Isn't In Any Way Mental is a satirical spoof documentary from the series Star Stories, parodying the life of Tom Cruise and his relationship with the Church of Scientology"). This was an episode of a UK TV programme called Star Stories.

On Wikinews, there was Tom Cruise spoofed in film 'Superhero Movie', "Unauthorized" Tom Cruise bio hits number one on Amazon.com, New York Times best sellers list, Tom Cruise Scientology promotional video leaked to the Internet, 'Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography' released, $100 million lawsuit in planning stages --JN466 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Werner Erhard

There are also 8 DYKs on Werner Erhard. Here is a paragraph that gets lots of free digs in on Erhard, describing him as an "an abusive EST-like guru", "shady motivational speaker", and "a flakey EST-like guru": Mork_Goes_Erk#Reception. That was a DYK, too.

Until yesterday, each of the Erhard articles we featured on our main page described Erhard in the background section as a "former encyclopedia salesman" (which neglects to mention that he was a sales training manager for Encyclopedia Britannica, as discussed at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#Encyclopedia_salesman) and says that he had "tax problems" in the early 1990s, which neglects to mention that these problems were resolved in Erhard's favour, when the IRS paid Erhard $200,000 in compensation for letting false allegations about his tax liabilities circulate in the media. --JN466 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review threads

Wikipedia Review has a special forum devoted to threads about Cirt. It has 16 threads, mostly from the past year, plus he's apparently received many mentions in other threads. Several threads are devoted to following Cirt's editing, month by month, like a spectator sport. One's titled, "Cirt's not dead yet, and he's already working on his next project". There's another one discussing the progress of this RFC, even as we write, in which one of the participants here is called an "idiot" and Cirt is described as doing "evil work". "Carbuncle" started six of the threads, the most by any one account. Other accounts who've participated there recently include:

• -DS-
• Abd
• Beer me
• carbuncle
• chrisoff
• Cla68
• EricBarbour
• Gruntled
• Herschelkrustofsky
• HRIP7
• It's the blimp, Frank

• LessHorrid vanU
• lilburne
• melloden
• Milton Roe
• pietkuip
• powercorrupts
• RMHED
• Silver seren
• tarantino
• thekohser
• Zoloft

Who are these people and why are they so interested in Cirt and this RFC? Some names are shared with banned or unbanned accounts on Wikipedia but most are not. It'd be strange if some people are commenting in both places, especially if they're using WR to make negative personal remarks free from sanction. It's hard to assume that folks are genuinely interested in dispute resolution and collegial editing if they turn around and present a different face on another site. How much has the WR coverage of Cirt affected this RFC? Did the initial concern over the "santorum" article start there? Has Cirt's involvement with Scientology been a topic there? It looks like the answers are yes and yes. Meaning that a bunch of anonymous users, some of whom may be banned Wikipedia editors, are talking together offsite about how to provide evidence with the hope, in some people's posts at least, of desysopping, blocking, or banning Cirt. I think this is troubling and shows elements of "ganging up" on Cirt.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this to go with your list of NRM affiliated people Will? Who's next Will? This post is beyond the pale in my view. You have provided no actual evidence of any of the things you assert, instead simply implying that any or all of the good faith contributors here are part of some sinister off wiki plot to gang up on Cirt. You need to remove this post unless, bare minimum you are prepared to offer specific evidence linking specific parties of this RfC to any off-wiki activity that suggests what you are trying to suggest.Griswaldo (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Folks at WR can comment on WP, but folks at WP can't comment on WR? That doesn't make any sense. I'd be happy to document the relationship between WR postings and WP activity. It'd help if any editors with accounts in both places could identify themselves.   Will Beback  talk  11:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Without evidence as to which WP editors use which names here, the entire exercise is mental blanking. 2. The wholesale labelling of editors is, by its nature, what is meant by "attack" by WP policies when done without any evidence whatever, and without giving notice to the specific editors that they are being so labelled by you on any page, and especially on a page related to dispute resolution. 3. I trust you will so notify all those whome you have so labelled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Whom have I labeled what?   Will Beback  talk  12:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Will stop being ridiculous please. WR is a separate website and does not abide by our policies, guidelines or conventions. What we should or should not do is in no way based on what they do. The issue I raised, which you have not answered, is echoed by Collect. Where is the evidence that makes any of this relevant? If there are specific editors that can be shown to part of an off-site effort to harass Cirt I would agree with you that it is certainly relevant and should be taken into account. But that requires evidence. Thus far all you're doing is casting more aspersions on everyone who is criticizing him. It needs to stop Will, it really does. I'm going to hat this thread if you don't make specific claims with evidence. I'm sick and tired of having my perspective smeared in this way.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it's ridiculous to suggest that there's a connection between the postings there and postings here? Or that some of the same people are involved? I don't think it's so far-fetched. Let's take a closer look and see if there are occasions where someone has criticized Cirt there, and then a similar criticism is posted here. Let's compare the month-by-month analysis of his editing with the points made on-Wiki. I think it'll be informative as to how we got here.   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What was ridiculous was suggesting that since they do something at WR review it means we should do it here. However, yes it is also ridiculous to suggest any of those things without any evidence and without any specifics. It's just a broad smear against anyone who criticizes Cirt if you don't do those things. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's no secret that I contribute to WR. Neither is it a secret that lots of editors and admins, including checkusers, oversighters, former and present arbitrators have accounts there, among them Casliber, Newyorkbrad, Xeno, Cool Hand Luke, Iridescent, John Vandenberg, Coren, Alison Steve Smith and NuclearWarfare. The "connection" you see is based on the simple fact that people express the same views there as they do here. I don't see anything nefarious in people talking about Wikipedia off-site. Would you propose that people should be forbidden from discussing Wikipedia off-site? That would be a rather heavy-handed restriction of free speech.
• Incidentally, Cirt used to recommend Wikipedia Review, and may well have contributed there himself in the past. --JN466 13:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see where those users have contributed to the threads on Cirt, which is what we're talking about. What is more to the point is that it appears that you and Cla68, the framers of this RFC, have discussed Cirt extensively off-Wiki in the company of a number of banned users, some of whom seem to wish to destroy Wikipedia. Since we don't know who most of those accounts belong to, it's not a stretch to guess that they might include people who've been banned as a result of ArbCom cases in which Cirt was a party. Such people may have a motive for seeing Cirt topic banned or otherwise punished.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • I find the Wikipedia Review a wretched hive of scum and villainy but its a free internet and people are free discuss Wikipedia where ever they like. So far you have listed a bunch of faceless accounts and accused people of being part of a conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia. You really need need to re-examine what you are posting here as you're beginning to sound like a paranoid schizophrenic. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You're right that many of the accounts are "faceless", in that we don't know which, if any, accounts on WP they're connected to. However we do know in some cases. Jayen466 here has identified as being HRIP7 there. I believe that Cla68 there is the same persona as Cla68 here. I also assume that ABD, Herschelkrustofsky, et al., are also the same people as their WP accounts. I don't think I'm deluded when I say that many people on WR have and freely express very negative views towards WP and its editors. The tone of the Cirt forum is certainly not positive or appreciative.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I believe Cirt is pushing an anti-Scientology POV and has frequently violated our BLP policies in the aid of that. I have been quite clear about that on-wiki and always provided evidence to back up any claims that I made. I don't think anyone should be surprised that I espouse the same view in off-wiki communications. It might be helpful to link some of those Wikipedia Review threads here. If I recall, some of those threads document Cirt's Scientology-related edits after they pledged not to edit Scientology-related articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You've made that point quite a bit on WR, from the looks of it, if you're the account called "carbuncle". Can you explain why you've devote so much time and energy following Cirt's editing for the past year? Doesn't that history imply you have prejudged the issues here?   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I take issue with a prominent Wikipedia editor so egregiously flouting the rules and guidelines here in order to aggressively push a particular viewpoint and compromise the neutrality of Wikipedia. Of course I have "prejudged" the issues here. Perhaps you have noticed that my username has been mentioned in the RfC/U in regard to previous complaints about Cirt's actions. It would be ridiculous for me to now pretend any kind of impartiality. Although making some of those complaints did require time to prepare, it is not a constant effort. Cirt edits as much as any two people and I could not keep up with that even if I wanted to. Unlike Cirt, I require sleep among other things. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I would very much like to know why you felt it necessary to make comments like: "I am intending to do a monthly thread here about Cirt's Scientology edits, because I would like to help them kick their nasty habit. Cirt, I don't say this in a mean way, but when you edit articles related to Scientology, it makes your fingers and breath smell like Scientology. And no one wants to kiss someone whose breath smells like Scientology." [107] What is your explanation for making such obviously malicious comments? Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but I have no intention of letting you and Will change the subject from Cirt's actions (as documented in quite some detail in the RfC/U) to off-wiki public discussion of those actions. Feel free to continue stamping your feet and jumping up and down while shouting loudly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, sometimes where there is smoke, there is fire. There is a lot of smoke. A lot. But you don't want to bother to see if there is a fire. Instead you are attacking the people who have every legitimate reason to find out where the smoke is coming from. A lot of people are attacking those bringing up these valid points, and without any logical arguments -- it is more personal attack than counterarguments, particularly this post by Will. Maybe the people asking, "Why are you attacking Cirt?" should be asking themselves, "Why am I defending him so vehemently?" Njsustain (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And sometimes there's just a smoke machine.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm fails to hide the speciousness of your meritless argument nor your not so thinly veiled ad hominem attacks. Dismissing valid concerns as a "smoke machine" is insulting and mocks the entire peer discussion process. Njsustain (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Arguing from adage isn't that strong. Let's see the source of this smoke.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look v-e-r-y closely at the editing of the politicians' bios for example, or the YouTube video that was inserted in Mace-Kingsley Ranch School, you might just get the tip of your nose roasted. That will tell you you've found the fire. ;) --JN466 06:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that school article is the reason that so many thread about Cirt have been started on WR, or have been particiapted in by you and others. If you can demonstrate that the school article, or even the political articles, are the reason for the Cirt Forum on WR then I'd be very interested to see that. It looks, rather, like the attention is due to Cirt's more general interest in Scientology, his mentorship by Durova, and other less seemly causes, like ganging up on an editor for the fun of it.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, you're really being ridiculous. Nobody is pissing on your leg and telling you its raining. Jayen and Carbnucle are pretty damn open about their activities there. As distastefulness as I find the WR, there is nothing wrong with being on there. If Jayen466 and Carbnucle are canvassing over there then we have a problem. Can you provide a thread where they have encouraged such action to alter the result of any discussion? Also if Jayen466 and carbnucle are canvassing there they are evidently not doing it very well as I can't find any one here who came from the WR. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, there are a lot of editors who really don't like Wikipedia Review (WR), for one reason because it has highlighted a lot of problems going on in Wikipedia, which Wikipedia's convoluted and disfunctional administrative system has often struggled to resolve. Those editors who have had their editing agendas disrupted or derailed by the spotlight that WR throws on their actions are understandably resentful and frustrated. As a result, they often lash out against it. At one time, during the WP:BADSITES debacle, editors tried to actually use participation at WR as a disqualifier for WP adminship. An appropriate response when someone complains about editors participating at WR is a figurative pat on their hand or shoulder while repeating "There, there...there, there" until they regain their composure. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about WR in general, it's about the forum there devoted to following and criticizing one editor: Cirt. You and Jayen466 have been active participants in those threads. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the threads at WR, I see extensive discussions and speculation about Cirt's identity, his (or her) gender, his sources of income, his spiritual past, his honesty, even jokes about his mother. Are folks here defending those topics of discussion as reasonable and helpful to resolving problems? Does anyone object to my reposting their posts there for review here?   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that certain editors involved in this discussion have been using WR to go after Cirt in ways that, on Wikipedia, would have earned them at least a reprimand and very likely a block or ban. Will, I think you should raise this issue in the arbitration case. Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment and WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks are relevant here: "Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith." and "Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." Carbuncle in particular has a case to answer. Prioryman (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Another issue is that WR threads serve to canvass responses to on-Wiki discussions. If I understand correctly, editors are claiming a nefarious connection between Cirt and an off-Wiki discussion forum while defending their own involvement in a different off-Wiki discussion forum.   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466, did you write this on WR?

• Cirt is up to her old tricks again. Clever use of the plagiarism and copyright violation meme in the AfD. Of course, guess who placed all those "warnings" ... 12th November 2010, 2:29am [108]

That seems like a fairly explicit failure to assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I made exactly the same criticism on-wiki, here. Franamax (talk · contribs) echoed the same criticism in that thread, telling Cirt:

  "And your presentation of that talk page blanking in the AFD "recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic" elides the fact that the bulk of what was removed was your warnings. That may piss you off, but again, if you want to be an admin you should be used to getting pissed off and dealing with it without fuss."

• That's a valid criticism, both on-wiki and off-wiki. --JN466 07:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• Furthermore, warning a newbie editor for copyright violation and plagiarism, for this edit, which was made with the edit summary (The purpose as stated by the originator.), and explicitly cited the originator, strikes me as a bad faith action. If an editor says, "as stated by the originator", and cites the originator, it declares his intention to quote the originator. What the edit needed was quotation marks, not a revert and a warning on the user's talk page for copyright violation and plagiarism. It's a typical case of WP:BITE. --JN466 07:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this thread from November 2010 which you offered,[109] I don't see a consensus there about any problem editing by Cirt. User:Spacefarer was, at that time, basically an SPA with a few edits going back four years. In the past 24 hours I've warned two new account about copying. It's what responsible, experienced users and admins do. (Usually not so frequently.)

Those two threads from November, on WP and WR, show that you have been among the leading editors promoting the "Cirt is bad" message. Since we're on the topic of WR threads, how many other bad WP editors do you routinely write about on Wikipedia Review? It appears that he's your main topic there. It's not like you're posting RFC/Us about other bad editors. It's Cirt in whom you're interested, and that's been the case for several years now. You complained about him here for years, you post regularly about him on WR, you wrote an essay about him, and you even talked about his editing at a Wiki-meetup. Your wife apparently knows all about the matter, so I assume it's your dinner-time conversation too. It's like he's become your main project here, and not in a good way.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, I believe you have disagreed with Jayen over content matters in other topics, have you not [110]? Carrying that dispute in here appears to be influencing you into trying to "shoot the messenger", which is unhelpful. A number of editors have supported, either in part or in whole, the conclusions reached by this RfC. A number of others, either in part or in whole, have disagreed. You haven't, as yet that I can see, given an opinion on the evidence. You have only attacked some of the participating editors, questioning their religious beliefs, off-wiki activities, and the like. So, what do you think of the evidence presented in this RfC about Cirt so far? Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 - do you think it's irresponsible for people to comment on RFC/Us if they've had content disputes with involved parties?   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, what is your opinion of the evidence and conclusions presented in this RfC? Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that some of the material and views expressed here were developed and gathered at WR. Specifically, forum devoted him and the month-by-month threads. I don't know what might be written about him on the confidential forums, but it wouldn't surprise me if he were also discussed in those. What can you say of your own involvement in those? Are you proud of them? Do you ever complain about behavior there or compile lists of WR editors who've "crossed the line", the way you do here?   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made clear that you don't like Wikipedia Review. As I explained above, this is a common sentiment among an unmeasured percentage of Wikipedia's editor population, many of whom were involved in the WP:BADSITES episode. That, however, is not the issue here. What I'm asking you is, what do you think of the evidence and conclusions in this RfC? Do you think any of it holds water? Do you agree or disagree with any of it? Also, you might respond to DE's new post below. Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

God, Will, you're just talking claptrap now. First of all, it wasn't Spacefarer who made the edit, but MLKLewis, who wasn't an SPA then and isn't one now. Second, to point out in an AfD that "this user recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic" is finger-pointing schoolboy behaviour -- much in the same league as "teacher, he did something naughty". Except that, per user talk page guidelines, any user is entitled to clear his talk page, and to boot Cirt conveniently forgot to mention that those grave "issues" were a thank you note from Hamiltonstone for MLKLewis' input to a GA review, and Cirt's own warnings. And they were spurious warnings! Cirt's revert stated (Reverted 1 edit by MLKLewis; Avoid primary sources. avoid wording that does not make sense. avoid internal jargon.. using TW). That was the reason for the revert -- he disagreed with the content, and couldn't stand having an Erhard quote in the article, because he evidently has a strong reaction to Erhard's "jargon". There was not a word about copyright and plagiarism. That was an afterthought, a few hours later. Now, my most active forum on WR is general discussion, according to my profile. I discussed the santorum article at the meet-up, as did several hundred people here and on the mailing list, because it was a crappy article. I did not "complain" about Cirt here, I pointed out that he was blatantly canvassing, which I'm sure pissed him off no end, because it got the AE closure he'd solicited overturned. Oh, and I submitted evidence against him once in an arbitration case. My dinner conversations! Are you psychic? Are you one of the flies on the wall? You live in a dream world, mate. My wife read the RfC/U, and couldn't believe the reaction to it, that's all. And she can't believe you. Your double standards are more glaring than the shining sun; you consider it fine to start a talk page section here on this page titled "Jayen's sex life", and are animatedly discussing and speculating about multiple editors' spiritual past and present, evidently considering it "reasonable and helpful", even essential, to resolving problems here, while telling everyone in an unctuous and schoolmasterly tone that discussions just like the ones you started here, carried on by persons unknown on an off-site forum, are gravely inappropriate and deplorable. Well done! And as far as I can recall, I have had about 20 times as many interactions with you this past year than with Cirt, not least because you tend to argue interminably with me about everything. So, what do you think about the evidence here so far? Any merit to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Additional_view_by_macwhiz_on_how_Cirt_edits? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Outside_view_by_Tryptofish? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Outside_view_by_DGG? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Outside_view_by_Collect? Are you actually interested in this RfC/U, or are you just interested in me? --JN466 10:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466, I'm not the one who raised the issue of your sex life. Your wife posted a view to an RFCU in which she volunteered information about your sex life, at the same time as she attacked Dan Savage, I guess to show that you're virile, experienced and heterosexual. We're all happy for you and your wife. But it remains one of the oddest things I've seen on Wikipedia. Your wife has gone on to explain various other things about your attitudes to editing and editors. I don't know how she might know that information, but I presume it's because the two of you converse, though that's admittedly just guess. As for our interactions, they mostly seem to be instigated by you. If we looked at the pages we've edited in common I am sure we'd find that I was there first in most cases. As for arguing with you "interminably" - I'm sorry that I don't always agree with you.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Boy are you the master of avoiding a legitimate question by launching a counterattack! I was trying my best to level with you here, but I’ve now come to the conclusion that you may just be after a gold star for following the rules laid out in How to Win an Argument to the letter. Sure glad I’m wearing boots today.

You claim I was attacking Dan Savage by referring to him as “the lovely Dan S.” I meant that in all honesty. I have been an occasional reader of Savage’s column for many years, and I admire the man for his It Gets Better campaign. That still entitles me to think that he went way overboard when dealing the way he did with the politician. It was Savage who referred to his supporters as “flying monkeys”. I was quoting him. Please consider my humorous reference to JN’s skills as a lover a nod towards Savage and his column. It was also an attempt at giving the people who (I’m paraphrasing here) equaled my husband’s involvement in the neologism article to him being some kind of bible-thumping, Savage-hating Republican basement dweller out to defend the politician a much-needed reality check. However much JN and I disagree with said politician’s views on equal rights, I still think it’s sad that Savage’s campaign probably resulted in people who unfortunately share the same name as the politician, including his children, having to deal with the fallout.

My comments inspired you to introduce explicit language into this discussion, culminating in the priceless image of my husband’s ‘hardon’ for Cirt. Doesn’t that contradict your above comments on my perceived intention to portray JN as ‘heterosexual’ and ‘virile’ while implying that you’re the big defender of LGBT rights around here? Fact is, you know nothing about our marriage, and I’d like you to keep your speculations to yourself.

But since your main purpose on this page seems to be adding static while exhausting everyone’s patience, let’s talk about gay rights, by all means, and your ‘deep respect for BLPs’. If you hop on over to the article on Jay Brannan, you will find him compared to Rufus Wainwright, "another openly gay young singer-songwriter". Then skip on over to the discussion page [111], where Brannan is paraphrased thusly “Although he has indicated he is gay in interviews and stories about himself, he does not want that orientation to be his defining public attribute. No "gay" or "openly gay" characterizations, and, in his words, "no identity and labels forced on me by others..." He is first an artist and does not want the most important defining attribute about him to be his sexuality.” On his user talk page [112], Brannan made the following plea in February 2008: “look i dont know how to use this stupid site and i dont want to learn. i can't compete with all the crazy control freaks on here. someone please stick up for me and get this thing deleted. i haaate wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!” That comment got him blocked from editing his own article. How about you put your money where your mouth is, show your respect for living people, and comply with the man’s request? --Draco^E 14:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere good at all. I don't recall if I was vocal in opposition to the whole "badsites" imbroglio, but I was in opposition to the wholesale "stink that sticks" aspect. I have commented there myself, perhaps three times? And I used to love the one-page Stranger for Dan Savage and its crazy personals. "Bike seat beauties wanted for photo encounters and seat sniffing, no physical contact." Thus I think I'm someone with very little dog in the race either way... And I think that's Will's concerns are valid and that they are a fit topic for a conflict-of-interest discussion. If something (anything) is seriously affecting on-wiki actions, then it's reasonable to take those things into account, and to have sensible discussions about them. That doesn't appear to be happening here? Can we all just step back a bit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Will has not shown any such effects. We would all welcome an actual conversation about how participation at WR is actually effecting this situation here, but that has not been forthcoming. Certainly not on a level past Wills insinuations. Certainly not through tangible diffs and links. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Three questions for Griswaldo and others contibuting here:

• Have you participated in the Cirt-related threads on WR? (If anyone does not feel comfortable answering that question in the affirmative then I suggest that they should not be commenting here too, with an undisclosed alias).
• Do you deny that they demonstrate an obsessive following of a single editor and admin in good standing?
• Do you think that after participating for months in discussions involving bad faith accusations name calling, derogatory remarks, attempted outings, and other unpleasant behavior that an editor can appear here with clean hands and say they assume good faith on Cirt's part and should be regarded as having clean hands?   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So do I now need to go familiarize myself with all the threads about Cirt at that website in order to answer your questions? For what reason? I do not give two shakes about what is said at that website unless it directly pertains to this situation here, something you apparently refuse to provide evidence for despite being asked to do so repeatedly. You say that Wikipedia Review contains "discussions involving bad faith accusations name calling, derogatory remarks, attempted outings, and other unpleasant behavior ..." So why don't you 1) actually show some of these things and 2) do so in a way that is meaningful to this particular discussion. What relevance is it to this issue if Joe Blow Wikipedia Review user did any of these things? Absolutely none. You have failed to show any relevance of Wikipedia Review at all. You simply trot it around so you can suggest that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow to be disregarded, whether they have ever read Wikipedia Review, have ever commented there, have ever commented on Cirt, or have ever commented on Cirt in any manner that might be problematic. You have also been asked repeatedly now to comment on the evidence presented here. What do you think of it Will? Since you are clearly incapable of ceasing to comment on the contributers here, can you at least also comment on the content? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the last time someone was actually sanctioned for something they said on Wikipedia Review was when EveryKing was desysopped for offering to provide some deleted content to User:WordBomb (even though he didn't follow through on his offer) back in 2006. As we all know, that sanction has been shown to have been completely unjust and out of order since WordBomb's concerns about corruption within Wikipedia's administration were validated and, to some degree, dealt with. Like I said, several editors within Wikipedia really, really dislike or fear what is said on Wikipedia Review and repeatedly try to bad mouth it and the editors who participate there. Anyway, I think we're still waiting for Will to actually endorse one of the views in this RfC or add his own view instead of trying to attack the editors who drafted and endorsed it. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anyone to be sanctioned here. That's not the purpose of an RFC/U. But I think if people want to be seen as making genuine efforts to help another editor improve then they can't be going around behind his back joining in obsessive, hateful threads about that editor offsite. So Cla68, I repeat my question to you: do you endorse the kind of material being posted n the Cirt thread on WR, and if not why aren't you making the same kinds of complaints there that you make here?   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Annnd, we're right back at each other's throats. Trying to keep being piggy in the middle here...

@Griswaldo - Are you suggesting that Will providing a link to a particularly egregious thread on Wikipedia Review would be helpful?

@Will - While I understand what you're getting at with the questions to Cla above, I don't think it's a useful way to pursue the issue. If for no other reason that it's not falsifiable: Cla can just lie. Or tell the truth. (That's not a value judgement, or an implication that Cla's a liar, by the way.)

@Pratically everyone - This is really not helpful.

Can we try at least to re-formulate the problem, to start over a little bit? Clearly a straightforward subjective I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach to "is conflict of interest here?" is not going to work. Rather than specifics, can we talk more generally about what might satisfy the various sides with respect to outcomes?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this RFC/U is being superseded by the ArbCom case, so I'm not sure the benefit of further discussion here.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you've been debating for weeks... now what?

I've been lurking and watching the Cirt stuff, and honestly it seems like whether he is guilty of something or not, other editors have stepped in to make improvements to articles, so we're none the worse as an encyclopedia. So my question to all those who are continually debating here is, what do you want to come out of this Cirt-hunt? Certainly enough ink has been spilled on this for people to come to some conclusion at this point, and the longer it drags on the more it looks personal and not just a professional censure.

So could someone kind of start to wrap it all up and give this some closure and so on? I hardly see how another month of debate will get you much more clarity. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

" so we're none the worse as an encyclopedia" - I have to disagree with this. User:Cirt has spread his POV throughout thousands of articles all across this Wikipedia. This wikipedia is far less WP:NPOV because of it. - It is not " whether User:Cirt is guilty of something or not" - but that, User:Cirt is guilty of violating core wiki policy, especially WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, in benefit of his POV and its time the community clearly told him that and passed a resolution to stop him from doing it in future. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, Some things can't be undone. A bad article can and I'm sure sometimes does affect important events. Evidence has been presented for the proposition that Cirt created promotional puff pieces supporting political candidates, and got them mentioned on the main page just before their election. Other editors stepping in after the elections can't undo any influence the articles may have had on the election outcome. This moves Wikipedia from being a neutral repository of knowledge to being a partial political lever. I'm not comfortable with that.

Where to now? I gather the only outcome one can expect from an RfC/U is more light on perceived problems and, hopefully, with insight and good will on both sides, reconciliation. Cirt has not responded to the more serious claims made here, so the matter is before the Arbitration Committee for their view. All I hope for from this is that some editors Cirt respects will offer an opinion on his behaviour, and how it could be improved, in terms clear and insistent enough to shake some insight into him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be grounds for a finding of fact that Cirt has engaged in a pattern of editing in Wikimedia projects that focuses on ...

• Scientology (and possibly other groups such as the Unification Church),
• individual Scientologists like Tom Cruise,
• individuals with an at least partially positive disposition towards Scientology, such as Sharron Angle and other such politicians whose opponents were given non-neutral, positive coverage,
• individuals with any kind of past association with Scientology, such as Werner Erhard, Jerry Seinfeld, Meade Emory (AfD) and others,

... in a way that evinces invidious bias. Cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias_and_prejudice, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Remedies_for_biased_editing.

There seems to have been more of this activity than I was aware of at the start of this RfC/U, and further evidence will need to be collected to scrutinise and review Cirt's editing, especially with regard to living people falling into the above categories. There is a difference between adding sourced criticism and other negative material within the overall balance of the project, and a focused effort to find, add and give prominence to such material, over many, many thousands of edits made to Wikipedia. --JN466 14:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see confirmation bias and cherry-picking. If you trawl through any large set of edits with a particular preconception, you can find "evidence" of some kind of POV pushing. It will just lack any significance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You could argue that the extent to which people think Cirt's editing is a problem (if at all) is influenced by confirmation bias, but individual pieces of information have not been fabricated or misrepresented in order to confirm a POV here. Those pieces of evidence still exist and require an explanation. Are you saying that Jayen's conclusions, based on the evidence, are a product of confirmation bias specifically because he has cherry picked certain instances of Cirt's editing and not others? Many of the people critical of Cirt here have, as I have, agreed that Cirt makes many positive contributions to the project. I don't think anyone is claiming that he only pushes a POV or only makes edits that are BLP problems. But there has to be some kind of explanation for the many similar behaviors he has displayed that seem to be problematic. Claiming that any attempt to see a larger pattern in his behavior, despite the evidence, is simply a product of confirmation bias is, IMO, the worst kind of cop out. If you disagree then offer a different explanation of the evidence. Simply calling it bunk and leaving it at that helps no one.Griswaldo (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW Stephan, it is very easy to prove that someone has been "cherry picking." All you need to do, for instance, is find examples where Cirt has edited BLPs of people with a positive relationship to Scientology where he did not display any of these editing problems. The mere fact that most of his edits are not to such BLPs proves nothing sine Jayen is asserting that he's editing in a certain fashion within a specific context. Show us that he is not and I'll believe your claim.Griswaldo (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Show me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough therein to hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu. Prioryman (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley.Griswaldo (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The pattern should not be permitted to continue, for one thing. What damage has been done is that a lot of people have wasted a lot of time undoing what Cirt is often unethically doing, as well as spending time talking about it. I think people want some changes so that we don't have to spend all this time talking in order for improvements of articles to occur. And I agree that much damage has occurred due to editors spending their time to make positive article changes ending up not bothering or giving up because of the actions of Cirt, and those that blindly defend him. The issue of timing of inappropriately biased articles being posted or changed at critical times is also extremely disturbing.

Also, the cherry picking argument is incorrect. Talking about a single edit that happens to be biased would indeed be cherry picking, but an ongoing clear systematic series of biased changes is not. Just because you have found a convenient buzz-word of logic you can link to doesn't mean that it applies here. Njsustain (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Make the matter simpler: Leave Scientology out of it for the moment. An experienced editor who comes into an article of any kind and starts adding stuff from a USENET newsgroup is asking for trouble. There is indeed a troubling editing pattern here, and it consists of individual editing choices that are questionable in themselves, and repeated across articles. It's compounded by the fact that many such edits were made to a very sensitive topic area. While I still think this RfC/U was... suboptimal... in its approach, I now see that one can build a case for this editing pattern. We don't need to reach to why Cirt edited in this way; whether it was an intentional act of POV-pushing or an innocent or unconscious failure to understand the effect of the edit, these edits themselves were contrary to policy. If Cirt did not make edits that are contrary to policy, there would be no need to question the motivation for his edits. I see that Cirt has acknowledged my suggestions in the RfC/U, and while that's positive, I would feel better about it if Cirt gave more commentary rather than mere capitulation. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, here's another diff with multiple cites to alt.religion.scientology and Operation Clambake: [113].

Talk page discussion between Cirt and Conti (talk · contribs) (abusefilter, sysop, 18087 edits since: 2003-05-13) over how to describe Mark Bunker in that article: Talk:The_Bridge_(2006_drama)/Archive_2#Bunker [114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121]. Cirt, to his credit, started an AfD on his own article: [122]. (Jclemens' keep rationale there and at other Scientology AfDs as well as this makes me wonder if I should have asked for him to recuse!) Making a little source go a long way: This is the source cited for the sentence Allmovie classified the production as a feature film "Religious Drama", involving themes of "Cons and Scams". The whole article is a stomach ache, though to his credit Cirt seems to have realised it himself. Ah well. --JN466 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My take on the answer to Avanu's opening question is that the RfC/U, any RfC/U, ends not with any sanctions (the process is not intended for that), but with some sort of expectations for what is expected of Cirt going forward. The polarization of the discussion here means, unfortunately, that there will not be a widely agreed upon consensus as to what, if any, those expectations will be, but I think (hope?) that a center of gravity is emerging in between the two poles. If the consensus amongst editors who do not have a history with Cirt is somewhere that leaves both Cirt's biggest supporters and Cirt's biggest critics somewhat dissatisfied, then I think that's the best we can hope for, for now. What will happen next is that Cirt will either edit according to that partial consensus, or not. And the next step after that will be, predictably, that Cirt's biggest critics will complain to ArbCom that Cirt has not, in fact, responded properly to this RfC/U. And then ArbCom will have to decide who is correct. So, although this is an oversimplification, one can think of this RfC/U as setting the stage for the ArbCom decision, with Cirt's own conduct determining the outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a good practice to ask people to stake out the most extreme positions and then split the difference. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree: it would be a waste of time to ask them to do that, but we can't stop them from wanting to stake out extreme positions if that's what they want to do. But the rest of the community can look at that and try to figure out what is really going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering what extreme positions you're discussing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? I can't answer for Jeh, who used the phrase first. I took it to mean those positions where editors do not even come close to agreeing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Waste of Time Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that statement pushed your carbon footprint over the line from being so ridiculous that it's funny, to so ridiculous that it's not even funny. Now you'll have to eat three vegan meals next week to drop down to your former status. Njsustain (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I like to eat vegans. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jolie isn't a vegan anymore Count Iblis (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I love animals — they taste great! Red meat isn't bad for you — fuzzy green meat is. --B (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought up this link to the Noleander "principle"; but I did so because I am certain that it was wrong - this newfound idea badly needs to be lost again. There are many people who subscribe to a religion who will edit with only a pro-religious bias, so we need to have balance by allowing those against the same freedom. Some oppose a religion due to factional differences, some due to unbelief, some due to a real sense of its dangers - all are useful to Wikipedia when they dig up obscure information and make it available to the reader, just as members are. I believe Cirt has the right to help this project by documenting dubious practices by individuals associated with Scientology, and I believe that Democrats have the right to do the same regarding the antics of creationists and their ilk like Sarah Palin. On charged political issues, like with everything else, Wikipedia does best by getting out as many facts as we can find.

I missed what the Usenet diff was, but I wouldn't rule out using Usenet sources altogether without further examination. In certain cases (i.e. when there is reason to believe the author is reliably known) Usenet postings are self-published sources just like web pages. In others they are the object of outside media commentary. This is particularly true for periodic postings made over a period of years. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was that WP:BLP was violated. Wikipedia WP:BLP does not say "add everything one can find on one's side to a person's BLP". Nor should it. See WP:PIECE for a more balanced view thereon. In fact, your apparent claim is one of the best reasons for Arbcom to settle for once and for all what the limits are on POV-pushing on any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Usenet diff was this one. JN466 represents it as "A Usenet post from alt.religion.scientology". Actually, if you review it the situation is far less black and white than he portrays it.

Note that the post in question is actually a copy of an article that appeared in the New York Post. I just found the article in Lexis-Nexis, as "Medical High Jinks Leave Cruise Camp Fuming", by George Rush and Joanna Rush Molloy with Sean Evans and Shallon Lester, 926 words on page 26 of the 4 April 2008 edition of the New York Post. I presume Cirt doesn't have access to Lexis-Nexis otherwise I'm sure he would have cited that reference. I do feel that JN466 is being misleading by citing it as a violation in the way he has. Prioryman (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It was Macwhiz who first spotted and brought up the Usenet post above. We don't cite Usenet posts as sources about third parties -- even if it is a copy of a published newspaper article, it falls under WP:ELNEVER. This particular post contained other material as well, besides the newspaper article. --JN466 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's completely against policy. Usenet posters are not reliable sources, no matter what they are violating copyright by copy pasting into usenet. For contentious BLP material this is a double no no. Prioryman, please familiarize yourself with our policies regarding reliable sources and BLPs, because if you actually believe what you're saying here you may be at risk of violating those policies yourself. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the information Cirt added to the article was not based on the newspaper article the Usenet post copied, but on the other half of the post. --JN466 20:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The New York Daily News is not a good source to be using for BLPs in the first place. The "gossip" pages of same, which is what is quoted in that usenet post, are unacceptable as reliable sources for BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have used that source either, and I share your view of gossip pages. My point was not whether it was a good source - it was whether it was simply "a usenet post" as stated by JN466. Rather, I was pointing out that if Cirt had cited it properly (i.e. to a specific New York Post article) I very much doubt if we would be having this discussion. Is there actually anything in BLP that rules out using the New York Post as a source? If not then I can certainly see how someone could have a good-faith belief that it was OK to use it. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. The usenet post consisted of a copy paste job from the NY Post and another part that linked to a non-reliable source. Cirt's addition was not from the NY Post article, but from the second half of the usenet post. In other words your "what if" comment has no bearing on the discussion because if Cirt had used the NY Post article directly as a source for something not in that article clearly we'd be having an equally troubling discussion of a slightly different kind. Undoubtedly this is why Cirt, a very experienced editor, did not link to the Post article directly in the first place. Because he was using the usenet post directly as a source. Now what? Do you condone this?Griswaldo (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Additions

I've added the following evidence to the RfC/U; please review.

• [123]: Misrepresentation of sources in Werner Erhard (book) and Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography.
• [124]: BLP issues in Mace-Kingsley Ranch School, sourcing in Tom Cruise Purple. --JN466 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• [125]: BLP issue. Cirt prominently mentioned tax problems and incest allegations in Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, without mentioning that the incest allegations were later recanted, and that the tax charges were later dropped. Both items of information were present in a source Cirt had already cited, located directly adjacent (in the very next sentence) to information Cirt had used in the article. --JN466 21:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• [126]: BLP issue. Cirt prominently mentioned that the BLP subject was accused of contempt of Congress, and did not mention that the accusation came to nothing. The BLP subject, Dan Fefferman (talk · contribs), complained about the article the day it ran on the main page. --JN466 13:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions for Will Beback

Hey User:Will_Beback,

I’m sorry for the late reply, what with real life getting in the way of the Internet and all, but I think I owe it to your commitment to commenting on this RfC/U to provide you with an answer to your last allegation in the thread above (the part where you quoted yet another bit of my post on the project page). Allow me to quote you, for a change:

"I don't see how that [one of my comments] could be read in any other way than as asserting that Cirt lied about the medical problems his family members were experiencing."

I fail to see how that part of my statement could make you come to your conclusion. What I found strange when reading Cirt’s explanation as to why he refused to participate more actively in the Arbcom case [127] regarding his political activism, and I apologize for having used one of Cirt’s favorite words – ‘interesting’ – without putting it in context, is that he still made over 500 edits to Wikipedia in the 96 hours following a statement about his relatives being in surgery and him helping them with their recovery. If I were in the habit of interpreting people’s comments on this site in the worst way possible, as you seem to have done with regards to my view and that of every perceived ideological opponent in this RfC/U, the only thing you could accuse me of is that I might have been tempted to say that, given Cirt’s continued editing of this here site, is that he was using his relatives’ misfortunes to get out of having to explain a number of his actions on here. But I didn’t say that. You consider yourself qualified to know what my husband and I are talking about over dinner. I’m sorry I don’t roll that way. Cirt may well have had a reason to have done what he did at the time, displacement and all. That still doesn’t make him any less accountable for what he did to the living, breathing people and their relatives – whether they are in surgery or not – whose biographies he edited and to which folks looking for information on the Internet turn to, expecting to find unbiased articles. Apart from that, I think it would have been in Cirt’s own best interest to speak up for himself. Your comments here certainly didn’t do him any favors, and added nothing whatsoever to the issues at hand: tendentious editing, bullying of numerous editors trying to add information, and evading scrutiny by declaring he was moving on to pastures new.

To get back to the matter at hand, and please feel free to once more quote each and every one of my statements out of context and refer to them as nothing more than the utterances of a hapless newbie meat puppet to my husband’s sinister Svengali (and believe me, that doesn’t even come close to defining the complex but loving relationship built on mutual respect between JN and myself), I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone in assuming that your lashing out at every person supporting this RfC/U, including submitting them to the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition on their religious affiliations, is coming from a place of pain within yourself that needs addressing.

As much as I was impressed with you refraining from posting a view here, given your far from neutral comments and your partly successful attempts at muddying the waters to the extent of making an editor you referred to as ResidentApologist post a hasty RfAr under the heading of ‘cults’, I am appalled that you posted a statement over at said RfAr without qualification. So far, nobody has called you out on that, which may just be another indicator about the discrepancy between this site's declared mission and the facts at hand.

However, in accordance with the sacred WP tradition of AGF, would you please be so kind and confirm that your ad hominem attacks against various participants in this RfC/U have nothing to do with my husband getting you blocked for edit warring once, thus tarnishing your record as an 'administrator in good standing', as this happened at least a year ago? I’m asking because I fail to see the logic in you trying to discredit the evidence brought against Cirt’s tendentious editing here by repeatedly requesting that all older incidents should simply be ignored instead of seen as proof of a pattern while at the same time attacking my husband and most of the editors supporting this RfC/U for having been ‘persistent critics of Cirt _for years_’.

I have been frank about my being married to JN466, which made me a convenient target for a number of ad-hominem attacks from you and your supporters. It took me some time to get from disbelief at the let’s-assume-the-worst attitude of your conclusions to the point where I’m willing to give your statements the benefit of the doubt. My husband told me that he used to respect your opinions, considered you a WP friend of sorts in spite of the two of you disagreeing on many a subject, even awarded you a Barnstar of Integrity. Other WP regulars refer to you as one of the most experienced and respected users on this site. However, given that you have so far accused five contributors to this page of cult membership while failing to disclose your own reasons for lashing out at them instead of sticking to the issues at hand, I think it might be helpful to all parties involved if you explained your association with Cirt and your need to speak up for him in the way you have done so far in more detail. Believe it or not, I’m trying to understand where your aggression is coming from. I for one would have a lot more sympathy for your actions if you and Cirt were old buddies or had come to exchange regular e-mails over the course of your activities on this here site, or had any other kind of relationship that would explain your disruptive behavior.

Given that you recently referred to Cirt’s involvement with Scientology ("Has Cirt's involvement with Scientology been a topic there?"), which goes a long way towards explaining this user’s animosity towards what he might once have considered a path towards personal happiness, how about extending the same courtesy you demanded of them to all the editors here you accused of cult affiliations? To put it plainly, and with all due respect: Have you or people close to you ever been involved in any religious or pseudo-religious organization that qualifies as a 'cult', in the broadest sense of the term? Have you suffered to the extent that makes you adopt a less than neutral point of view towards any of these organizations? And do you think that your attitude benefits the spirit of this project or contributes anything in the way of bringing this RfC/U to a conclusion that will benefit all parties involved? --Draco^E 05:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a very long posting. I probably won't respond to every point, but I'll try.

1) Whether one responds to an issue within 12 hours or 48 hours rarely makes a big difference. Cirt said he had relatives in the hospital. Under those circumstances I imagine it's easy to be emotionally distracted. That might make it hard and stressful to give a well-reasoned response to personal accusations. On the other hand, making "gnomish" edits that require little thinking could be therapeutic and relaxing. If we assume good faith that makes sense.

2) I have not "lashed out at every person supporting this RfC." I have raised concerns about possible bias, prejudice, and conflicts of interest by several people who've participated.

3) I don't understand your point about not participating in this RfC versus participating in the RFAR. I was named as a party in that request, so a response is ordinarily expected.

4) Jayen466 and I have a long history, much of which involves him popping up at topics where I'm already engaged. Likewise, he seems to follow Cirt around. If you can explain why I'd appreciate it.

5) I don't know why you decided to participate in this RfC. From what I can see, you've never done so before. It doesn't look like you've had any particular connection to Cirt. The implication is that you got involved because it was your husband who drafted this. Further, you raised marital issues, such as attesting to his personality and yes, even his sexual prowess. In addition, you attacked what you called "Cirt's faction" by calling them "flying monkeys". I know you think that was simply humorous, but I for one did not read it that way and you've failed to acknowledge that it could be offensive. You also made a derogatory reference to Rick Santorum, which if had been done on an article talk page or anywhere else could have resulted in a warning about respecting living people. I have not attacked you - I have pointed out these issues with your statement.

6) I have been neutral in all of my editing on Wikipedia. I do not edit based on any personal animosities. The fact that I disapprove of people editing topics where they have significant conflicts of interest doesn't mean that I also have a conflict of interest.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies.

Re 1) I already made allowances for your point in my comment ( "... displacement ..."). I don’t understand why you’re referring to the previous RfAR on Cirt as personal accusations. I read it, and it seemed to be about his editing.

Re 2) Maybe you want to reread some of the comments you’ve made on here.

Re 3) My point was about you not qualifying your statement with something along the lines of ‘involved’. I have since then noticed that other editors participating here have not qualified their statements either, so please accept my apologies for that. Despite having been named as a party, I decided not to comment there, for obvious reasons.

Re 4) Funny how, at least as far as this RfC and previous such occasions are concerned, things seem to be exactly the other way around. You popped up, had a massive go at my husband, and your comments in my opinion are not helpful in bringing things to a positive conclusion.

Re 5) I already explained that in my initial post. I was trying to stand up for my husband, just like you're standing up for Cirt. I did read the evidence posted by Cla68 and JN466, considering it rude to come to class unprepared. While I have every respect for the causes Cirt’s obviously fighting, I think the way he’s doing it is wrong and harmful to the project. Funny how you're still going on about me misspelling the politician's name, given that you did the same to ResidentAnthropologist a few hours after he replied to you with "Why dont you just call us Cult apologists and complete your ad homien attacks." I've since given my spellchecker a stern talking to. Darn thing probably has a secret equal rights agenda. Permission to paraphrase your explanation “Apologies for misspelling … it was just a mistake”?

Re 6) Having read some of the edits you made to the articles you seem to be mostly involved with, I’ve come to the conclusion that real-world neutrality and Wikipedia neutrality are two very different beasts. Given that you considered it helpful to this RfC/U to bring up The Wikipedia Review, I’ve had a look at that site as well. I’m probably completely wrong to assume that this is a satirical site aiming to be the Anonymous to the Church of Wikipedia [humor alert]. Hey, even Cirt recommended them in his Smee days. They have a forum on you entitled "Will Beback. "I sh*t on BLPs". I wouldn’t like them either if I were you. You using them here to detract from the actual issues might however be considered less than neutral.

I suppose it would be a complete waste of time to point out that you did not answer my actual questions as to your own ‘cult’ history in my previous post. There are many more enjoyable ways for me to spend my lunch break than continuing to participate here. You seem to be enjoying this. I'm not.--Draco^E 13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I assure you that I'm not enjoying this. I don't know why you'd get that impression. OTOH, Jayen466 seems to have devoted most of the past month, or more, to building his case against Cirt. Out of Jayen's last 1000 edits, at least 460 have been related to Cirt.[128]

And, for the record, I did answer your question. Here it is more clearly: I have not written about any groups with which I or any friends or relatives have had significant involvement. For the record, your question shows that such questions don't "cross the line", as Cla68 has accused.   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Julia Moon

Here is another of Cirt's cult-related DYKs, which ran on the main page on 26 December 2009: Julia Moon. The reception section looked like this:

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, critics called Julia Moon's 1989 performance in Giselle at the Kirov Ballet in Leningrad "barely corps quality".[30] The critics complained about Kirov artistic director Oleg Vinogradov for "compromising the company's standards".[30]
Julia Moon's October 2000 performance in Giselle in London received a negative review from The Evening Standard, "Universal Ballet, which made its London debut last night with Giselle, turns out to be a vanity project. ... The connection between the two principals is so weak that the drama of the second act pas de deux when their marriage is consummated in spirit and for one night only - is dissipated."[31] A review in The Times commented on her performance, "Moon is not a strong dancer - her feet are especially weak - but she is almost spookily ethereal."[32] Financial Times observed, "She shows us some of the technical matter of the piece, though I find her abilities disappointing, and goes through the drifty motions dutifully enough. But the role escapes her."[33] A review in The Daily Telegraph wrote, "she turned out to be a luminous ballerina with a rare fragility of presence."[34] The Sunday Times posited that she may have been a better performer previously in her career, "As Giselle and Albrecht, Julia Moon herself and Jae-Won Hwang have beautiful manners and make shapes to match. He scores better in the second act (despite his ultra-violet tights) with strong, elegant dancing and feeling. Moon may have been more striking in earlier years. She harbours her resources, and her emotions seem hidden behind a mask. All in all, this was not a Giselle of great potency."[35]

I spent half an hour doing a search in Highbeam and Google News for Julia Moon's critical reception, searching for "Julia Moon" + performance. This is what I found (I excluded Washington Times reviews, because of that paper's connection with Moon):

Ms. Moon, an American-born ballerina, is certainly one of the most feminine of dancers, delicately pliant and ethereal. Soft-spoken yet determined, she also functions as the company's general director. New York Times

...the ballerina Julia Moon, the company's sensible general director. New York Times

It was a careful rather than spontaneous performance, but Moon is a lyrical dancer with a gorgeous line and the gracious authority to make one believe that she can calm a raging storm, capture the heart of both a sea monster and a king and make the blind see again. Washington Post

In December 1989, she was the first Asian to perform as a guest principal with the Kirov Ballet of St. Petersburg. Life Times

The Universal Ballet of Korea staged a stunningly beautiful performance of "Swan Lake" at the Spokane Opera House two years ago. Now, the same company is bringing another classic story ballet, "Sleeping Beauty," to the Opera House for a single performance Sunday night. The Spokesman Review

A founding member of Universal Ballet and now its general director, Julia Moon brought aspecial authority and gravity to her performance Tuesday that unified the ballet and added poignancy to her lyrical dancing, whether she was begging for food, rejecting the advances of an amorous sea critter or finding love in the arms of the Korean King. LA Times

Steivel praises Moon's "line and her emotional quality." Still, when Vinogradov cast her as "Giselle" with the Kirov, skeptics had a field day. "Julia is lovely," ABT ballet mistress and former UB instructor Georgina Parkinson told the Los Angeles Times. "But I don't think she could ever become a dancer for the world market." Moon herself had doubts. "Vinogradov saw me on a video and cast me," she recalls. "Was I prepared? Of course not. But I worked very hard and the Russians were very warm. They love ballet the way Americans love football." The Moscow News called Moon's performance a "success"; on a Universal Ballet tour in 1990, the Italian newspaper La Stampa wrote: "Julia Moon is an exquisite protagonist--a particularly lyrical ballerina." LA Times --JN466 15:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, thank you for exposing this User:Cirt's repeated and long term violations of BLP NPOV. I have looked at what you have collected and User:Cirt's violations are unworthy of any editor, never mind an experienced administrator. User:Cirt is/ has been a severe net loss to the neutrality of this project and if he is not banned from the project he should retire in shame. Off2riorob (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

12 featured articles, 1 featured list, 2 featured portals, 4 good topics, 87 good articles, 152 DYK articles, 73 barnstars [129]. It strikes me that whatever Cirt is accused of having done, the massive number of high-quality contributions he has plainly made should not be ignored. I have to say it would also not hurt if there was less of the hysterical denunciations that we've seen in this RfC/U, particularly from Off2riorob. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who is finding the "burn the witch" mentality on display here tiresome and unhelpful. Please tone it down - it isn't necessary and it doesn't help your case. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mussolini made the trains run on time, but he was still Mussolini. I don't care how many good edits an editor makes... that is not relevant to whether his unethical behavior is unethical. The ends don't justify the means; if you do something that justifies being banned, you should be banned--end of story. Njsustain (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have no case to make, its indisputable. The fact that there is a lot of it only makes it worse, all of it is a net loss to the en wikipedia project. Users that fail to read/fail to admit the mass of policy violations laid out on this RFC and blindly support User:Cirt for whatever non policy reasons they may have are as responsible for the User:Cirt's long term repeated violations as he is himself. You are one of the most vocal of User:Cirt's supporters but when you say, " It strikes me that whatever Cirt is accused of having done," ...I have to wonder if you have even read the multiple WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violations as laid out in the RFC. What you call a witch hunt I call a neutral assessment of the diffs on the RFC page and a conclusion that this User:Cirt has repeatedly over a lengthy period of time violated core policy. - Off2riorob (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When you engage in ludicrous McCartyism like claiming that everyone who has disputed your view is responsible for violating policies, it's obvious that you're on a witch hunt. I'm not so much a supporter of Cirt as a sceptic of his detractors. As I said near the start of this discussion, I agree that there are issues that Cirt needs to take note of. However, there are several reasons why I'm sceptical: 

• There is plainly a long-running effort on and off-wiki to attack and harass Cirt, occasionally in disturbingly personal terms (e.g. Carbuncle's comments on WR) and seeking to "out" him.
• Bad faith is constantly assumed by his detractors and everything Cirt has done is being interpreted in that light (the completely unproven claims of so-called "wikibombing" are a case in point) - Stephan Schulz has described this as "confirmation bias".
• A significant number of the claims being made are based on little more than innuendo, and some are clearly false. One in particular is so egregiously false that I can't see it as anything other than a deliberate lie (I'll highlight this later).
• It's clear that there are issues at work here other than Cirt's editing. There are obviously personality clashes going on, perhaps obsessively so in the case of some people. Will Beback has suggested that there may be an ideological agenda at work too. I don't know the truth of that claim but this RfC/U does have a strong air of scores being settled.

I think that if you're going to make allegations of wrongdoing against another editor, particularly one with a record as outstanding as Cirt's, you have an obligation to be as rigorous and objective with the evidence as possible. That plainly is not the case here. There are some real issues but they have been obscured - and I think to some extent discredited - by the innuendo, speculation, assumptions, exaggeration, ritual denunciations and outright falsehoods that have been posted in the evidence and on this talk page. Cirt's detractors have damaged their own case and credibility as a result. I think even JN466 has acknowledged now that this RfC/U could and should have been done differently. Prioryman (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What a wonderfully extraordinary example of assuming bad faith. It, in its own way, strongly validates this RFC/U so thank you! Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't have a view, the simple assessing of serious policy violating does not require a view. You appear to be focusing on the people and not the diffs and violations presented. I am interested only in the User:Cirt's policy violations, which I find indisputable. I am sure Arbitrators would also find the patterns of policy violations by User:Cirt, repeated, serious, and worthy of sanctions. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if I were to draft this RfC/U again, I would write it differently. However, that Reception section for Julia Moon does not seem to have been a balanced reflection of her reception. Similar concerns were expressed here, for example, with respect to another article which appeared on the main page:

weak keep I think there is clearly sufficient news and book coverage for it to be notable, but the articles is drastic POV and prejudicial overcoverage. That almost all of us here might agree with the POV is not relevant. An extremely expansive article--judge's picture, seal of the court where the appellate decision was rendered, long description, excessive background, pathetic quote and the end, etc. I'm almost tempted to say G10, "Attack page", because the way it is written, that might well the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Bearian, while sharing some of DGG's concerns about the POV. I made one edit to address this - others will be needed, but it isn't a reason to delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

--JN466 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem I have with this specific claim by you is that it assumes intent on the basis that Cirt didn't do something you think he should have done. I think there is an important difference between actions and non-actions. If Cirt did something specific that you think was against policy, then you can fairly say "he shouldn't have done that". He took the action and obviously intended to do it. In this case Cirt obviously did not take a particular action - i.e. add those sources you found. To assume intent, you have to assume that he was aware of those sources but chose to ignore them. The trouble is that that is pure speculation. Did Cirt ever know about those sources or see them? We don't know. Nor do we know that the omission was intentional. In the absence of action, I don't think intention can be reliably inferred. I'll give you an analogy: if I rob you on the street, it is pretty obvious that I intended to do so. If I stood by while someone else robbed you, I might have any number of motives: maybe I didn't notice, maybe I was in league with the robber, maybe I was too afraid to intervene. But because I didn't act and I've not told you why I didn't act, you can't infer why I didn't act. If you then claim publicly that I didn't act because I was one of the bad guys, you're not basing that on hard evidence but on supposition and innuendo. That's what I see here with this claim about Julia Moon. You are on stronger ground when you address things that Cirt has actually done. Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Intent has nothing to do with it. Indeed it's a rhetorical red herring whenever it has been brought up in this case. Violating policy, in this case WP:NPOV, does not come down to intentions. Sure one can violate the policy while being naive of the fact that one is doing so. One can even do it over and over again. However that poses the exact same problem for the project as doing so with malice in one's mind does. A pattern of NPOV violations has to be dealt with, and it simply doesn't matter if the person doing it means well. That said, it is very difficult to imagine someone repeatedly violating WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) in the same direction and doing so by mistake. If Cirt wasn't pushing a POV he'd not be adding undue critical information to the same type of entries and undue positive information to another type of entries, along ideological lines. I'd like to see the examples of entries where Cirt mistakenly added undue negative information that had nothing to do with his known POV inclinations. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I've been watching these discussions, and for me the more recent evidence about BLPs in general is becoming more of a serious concern about Cirt's editing than was most of the earlier evidence. Following on the logic of Griswaldo's last sentence just above, but going in a broader direction, I'd like to see whether (or not) Cirt has a record of also making reasonable and NPOV edits to other BLPs. Something that is very difficult to assess in a case such as this, partly because of the inadequate response of the accused, is whether the evidence is representative or not. We have here an editor with a very large number of contributions. It makes sense that the editors raising the complaint will report only those edits that actually do appear to be problems. But does that mean that the examples are cherry-picked, or that they are representative? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Shultz accused Jayen of cherry picking evidence, and I put the challenge directly to him to find evidence of cherry picking (which is very easy if cherry picking has actually occurred). He, of course, did not respond. It should be very easy to find articles of the kinds being discussed here that were heavily edited by Cirt and if cherry picking occurred it should be very easy to find examples quite unlike the ones presented by Jayen and others in the sense that they did not involve policy violations.Griswaldo (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cirt unquestionably does good edits outside the field of his POV interest. But it seems to be different in fields like Scientology, Werner Erhard, Unification Church etc.

• Take the Tom Cruise films Knight and Day and Lions for Lambs. Neither film did particularly well. Cirt is far and away the most prolific contributor to our articles on them: [130], [131]. If you check Talk:Knight_and_Day/Archive_1 (Cirt has a habit of setting up talk page archiving in such a way that all threads but one will be removed from the talk page) as well as the article's edit history, you will find that Cirt was involved in disputes with multiple editors, and sought to exercise control over the article. I also wonder why the lead stated until today, "it garnered a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes based upon aggregated reviews", sourced to this, which gives it a Tomatometer rating of 53%, with the summary: "It's pure formula, but thanks to its breezy pace and a pair of charming performances from Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, Knight and Day offers some agreeably middle-of-the-road summer action.") In this edit on 24 June 1010 Cirt restored the wording "it garnered a rotten rating" after another editor had changed it to: "Review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reports that 53% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 104 reviews, with an average score of 5.6/10", with the edit summary: (not sure why source was removed here. Also, let's avoid constant updating of the Rotten Tomatoes statistics.) What is editors' view of this edit?
• When it comes to successful Cruise films like The Color of Money, Jerry Maguire or Top Gun, Cirt is nowhere to be seen: [132], [133], [134].
• Miles Fisher, a minor actor who has done Tom Cruise spoofs, has a complimentary article from Cirt, complete with a table that mentions the prize he won for his undergraduate thesis (one of only two mentions this prize has in all of Wikipedia).
• When Cirt writes about Scientology critics or their books, the articles will sound enthusiastic, and focus on the heroism of the critics, and the acclaim they won. They will also on occasion misrepresent that reception. Operation Freakout is an example. Note the last sentence: "J. Gordon Melton cites the book for "insight" into the Scientology controversy, in his work, The Encyclopedia of American Religions[15]." (That is the J. Gordon Melton Cirt argued elsewhere was unreliable.) What Melton actually said was that people should read both Cooper's book and the Church of Scientology's refutation of it to gain insight into the controversy. [135]
• Cirt's articles on anti-cult proponents avoid legitimate criticism, as in the article on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: see Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry/Archive_3#NPOV. CARM holds for example that Catholics are not Christians. CARM provides cut-and-paste arguments for people to copy and use in chatroom discussions, which many people might find weird. Cirt’s article did not mention either of these facts.
• Books by scholars that treat Scientology as a religion fare less well, cf. Cirt's article on an Oxford University Press book on Scientology (also a DYK). Most of the reception section for this academic book was sourced to the satirical magazine Private Eye, and to comments from Richard Ingrams, who confessed he had not actually read the book. See the talk page discussion. The same goes for books that take a positive view of Werner Erhard, as for example Werner Erhard (book), mentioned in the evidence, or The_Book_of_est#Critical_reception.
• In the article on Operation Clambake, an anti-Scientology website, Cirt prominently included mentions that the owner of the website had won the Leipzig Human Rights Award. He did not mention that this now seemingly defunct award was bestowed by an organisation composed of Scientology critics, and that only Scientology critics are eligible to receive it. When it comes to an award Werner Erhard won, Cirt wanted it mentioned in Erhard's biography that the organisation that gave the award to Erhard (as well as people like President Clinton and Joan Baez) was eleven years later investigated for fraud. [136][137][138]User_talk:Theeld Talk:Werner_Erhard#Gandhi_Humanitarian_Award.
• If editors are aware of Cirt adding poorly sourced criticism to biographies of Scientology critics like Jason Beghe or Andreas Heldal-Lund, or adding unduly flattering material to people associated with Landmark Education, the Church of Scientology or the Unification Church, I'd be interested in seeing such examples. --JN466 14:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I guess I was hoping that I wouldn't have to spend time looking for it myself. Not an unreasonable thing to ask. Jayen, thanks. Jayen, would you consider it fair to say that your view of the evidence is that Cirt does good BLP editing outside the area of Scientology/Anonymous, but that you see a consistent pattern of POV editing to BLPs of people with purported Scientology or similar associations? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, when it comes to Cirt and Scientology, I think one has to see the ARBSCI decision of April 2009 as a cutoff date for new evidence.[139] Iffy Scientology edits before that date are old news, and useful only to show a pattern of behavior in the context of new edits since then. As currently presented, it's difficult to figure out which articles show that this behavior (a) is continuing and (b) exists in areas outside of Scientology and related topics. It would be good if those who have researched this would clarify this. For instance, the Sharron Angle article seems to be Scientology editing after the ARBSCI decision.[140] It would definitely help if this point were made more explicit.

That is, that Cirt has a thing about Scientology is old news, and dealt with. That Cirt has apparently continued the pattern after ArbCom told him not to, and that the pattern may be present in other areas, is a current concern that we should deal with. Let's take note of, but not get too distracted by, the old news. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Yes, that is correct. I believe Cirt is a fine editor outside these topic areas.

@Macwhiz: I agree with that. Older evidence is something to bear in mind in terms of long-term patterns, but not really the core of the issue. I had pretty much abandoned working in this topic area, and not run into Cirt for some time. I knew about the Peralta, Dickson, and Anderson editing last year. However, when the Santorum issue came up, realising the scope of the problems with that article, knowing that Santorum has past associations with the Unification Church on religious freedom issues, and knowing of Cirt's past editing history in relation to political campaigns, I felt there was a significant problem here, and that it was ongoing. --JN466 23:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jayen. So my next question would be: within those topic areas, what proportion of Cirt's BLP edits appear to you to be POV-pushing, as opposed to correction of POV (going in the opposite direction) that was inserted by other editors? (After all, there does seem to have been some history of edits trying to make Scientology look good.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not the usual pattern, Tryptofish. Cirt typically avoids high-traffic articles, preferring to create or substantially expand articles on narrower topics (such as the individual Werner Erhard lawsuits, Tom Cruise Purple, Julia Moon, anti-cult books, and so forth). He generally puts in 50 or 100 edits, and the article arrives ready-made or, if there was a stub before, is completely overhauled, with not much left of what was there before. Where it concerns this topic area, many editors have said that they can discern a noticeable POV (example 1, discussion; example 2, discussion), which he defends against IPs or minor editors coming in, while being somewhat more ready to take on board criticism from more established editors. --JN466 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. What stands out to me in discussion number two, to which you link, is that there is a discussion amongst Cirt, you, and DGG, in which Cirt seems to be entirely cooperative in responding to the concerns that you and DGG raised. That does not look to me like POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK so he was being cooperative with two experienced users who he knows are keeping an eye on him. But he was not "cooperative" with User:Njsustain in a similar matter, regarding the puffery at the Daryl Winebar article. You have to worry more if an editor is constantly writing UNDUE articles and he only respects the criticism of a minority of editors. Do those editors have to Wikistalk his edits to keep the encyclopedia balanced?Griswaldo (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. (I'm asking questions here, in hopes of focusing the tl;dr mass of "evidence" into something manageable.) Would you and Jayen agree that this bifurcation—cooperation with editors who know how to defend themselves, lack of cooperation with those who don't—is a consistent pattern in these kinds of edits? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the impression a number of editors have gathered. It is more than lack of co-operation with less well-established editors. It involves reverting them and taking action against them—leaving them warnings on their talk pages, as in the case of the Sharron Angle IPs, reporting them as vandals, e.g. User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#BLP_violating_use_of_rollback, or accusing them of disruption at ANI, as with #Njsustain and THF. --JN466 23:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I understand and I think that makes sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom motion

The arbitration committee has posted a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motions:

The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will:

a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties;

b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles;

c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein.

What seems unclear at the moment is whether or not the matters raised in this RfC/U are within scope of either of these cases or not, and whether or not the community will be able to submit evidence related to these issues. --JN466 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see how anyone could avoid bringing evidence from this RfC/U into (a). The real question is, will ArbCom take any action on that evidence insofar as it relates to Cirt's editing pattern, or will they declare that to fall under (c)? I've mentioned it in the appropriate place there in hopes of swaying the Arbs. But I don't care to start speculation on the result; the last thing we need is to hybridize our homegrown drama with some Death of Caylee Anthony-style pundit-prognostication drama. ;) Good God, could you imagine the fight over who would get to play Nancy Grace? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

'update - the motion (a) has been slightly altered to ...

a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal the conduct of each party and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties;

I think that considering that the RFA motion (a) is going to consider similar issues as have been raised here we should look at closing this, perhaps with a closure of -

• - unresolved at RFC User:Cirt, issues raised to Arbitration - Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine (hope?) that ArbCom would state at some point (presumably when the motions are declared "passed") that this RfC/U is closed and superceded by the arbitration. I think that, until then, we are free to continue discussion here. But we should also be giving thought to how this will be closed. I partly agree with Rob that the closure should emphasize that there was no complete resolution. But I think we can go farther than just that. We should certainly note that commenters were divided between those who felt there were major concerns and those who felt the concerns were without merit. But I think we can also identify a partial consensus for a list of things where there was some agreement that Cirt could take away as constructive advice. I would suggest that this should be a sort of merge between what Macwhiz recommended and what I did. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you draft a middle ground closure statement along these lines? I think you are right for the most part. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew I should have kept my mouth closed! Yes, I'll give it a shot, but not for another day or so—so anyone else, please feel very free to go first! Question: does the closer have to be an admin? I'm not one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

heh. I would think it should be an admin, but if we draft up something here, and someone closes using it, I think that would be ok. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do keep in mind WP:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing#Closing due to other dispute resolution, which states "... if [the dispute] has proceeded to arbitration or mediation, a case needs to have been accepted and opened before the RfC/U should be closed." (Emphasis added.) Currently, although ArbCom has made motions to open cases, they have yet to actually open any cases. I don't see anything on that page that says an admin has to be the one closing an RfC/U in this circumstance, though. So drafting a closing statement is a good idea; using it is premature. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

extraordinarily rough first draft of closure statement

During the course of this rfc, ⌘macwhiz and Tryptofish each made suggestions for User:Cirt that might be useful in the future (and are probably useful for all prolific editors to review). These are the summarized suggestions.

• Ensure a neutral POV in articles edited by consciously trying to find and include material that refutes Cirt's preferred point of view, especially on contentious subjects (while maintaining all applicable policies for content inclusion);
• Going forward, Cirt needs to take care when editing not to make pages that can be construed as "promotional", even when Cirt does not intend them to be promotional. Cirt needs to ask: "could an editor who disagrees with me construe this as promotional?", and if the answer is "yes", be open to edits that moderate what Cirt has written.
• Take care to avoid editing multiple articles within a topic in such a way that slants Wikipedia's coverage of the topic away from neutral;
• Avoid editing articles in topics where Cirt has a strong personal point-of-view, especially where it may be difficult to keep that POV from seeping into the edits;
• Engage other editors with more care, adopting a helpful attitude and explaining more fully why an edit is objectionable, either with an explanatory reference to policy or by clearly articulating Cirt's feelings on borderline cases.
• Cirt should make a bigger effort to recognize that others can have good faith objections to Cirt's edits, and Cirt should make an effort to edit carefully, with that knowledge.
• Cirt should be especially careful not to call good faith edits vandalism, and should generally be willing to consider new editors to be making good faith edits intended to improve the page.
• Cirt should make an effort to make more use of WP:BRD.
• When Cirt is criticized, Cirt needs to do more than just say that they will do better next time. Cirt needs to demonstrate, by substantive editing practice, that the things that were criticized before do not continue to happen.
• Going forward, Cirt needs to recognize that other editors will be closely scrutinizing Cirt's edits, and, knowing that, Cirt needs to take extra care that every representation of sources needs to be entirely accurate and professional.
• Ensure that quotations from sources include sufficient context so that the reader can understand the quote in the way the source presented it, possibly by asking other editors to point out possible misconceptions;
• Avoid using self-published YouTube videos as sources if they refer to any third person;
• Stop expanding an article when it has reached its organic limits, even if that leaves it short of the DYK expansion criterion;

--Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally seems OK to me as far as it goes. However, to be a true summary of the RfC/U, there should also be some additional text. Here's what I'd add: (I'd better say: That quote's in no way a dig at RA; I was going to say "intractible" but RA's quote is such a brilliant example of WP:SPADE that I couldn't help myself.) I imagine other folks see it a bit differently, but hopefully we can come up with a reasonable one-paragraph summary for the tl;dr crowd. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems good also. I'm a little bit sad that cirt won't review any of this, and actually do better at editing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, both of you, for saving me the trouble of getting this started, which is a load off my mind! Let me make a try at some edits of macwhiz's paragraph: I tried to remove those things where participants in the discussions might disagree. I'd suggest using something like that as the opening paragraph, with the bullet list coming after. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems extremely inaccurate. Gamliel and MacWhiz for example both had opinions that there weren't any serious issues and from my glance more people have endorsed those opinions than any other opinions. Indeed, both opinions are endorsed by 24 people, whereas the initial RfC by Jayen and Cla is endorsed by 9 people. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I think JoshuaZ makes a good point. How about deleting, from the latest version of the introductory paragraph, most of the middle sentences? Thus: Then, we could modify the introduction to the bullet list to read: Then I think the bullet list could still follow. I'll also point out that the process isn't simply a matter of counting !votes. There has been some evolving view that neither the views that there were no serious problems, nor the views of the initial RfC complaint, are really correct. (And note for example that Macwhiz has said explicitly that his view has evolved since he first commented.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a high number of endorsements for early dismissive views are particularly meaningful. Note also that an almost equal number endorsed DGGs view. This RfC has been filled in, and discussion has been ongoing over quite a few days. One of the two editors you mention by name, Macwhiz, has actually changed his perspective as more information came in and as more discussion was had. I'd personally be much happier with a close that makes no statement of any kind except, Close, without prejudice, because the RfC has been superseded by an arbitration case.Griswaldo (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and others who want a lengthy closing summary. I think the problem here is that if this RfC were a normal entry you could rightly claim a consensus on some of those points, because they seem to be agreed upon by most of the people who remained in the discussion. The problem is that people weighed in early on, and those views are not going to be forgotten. These people may also have agreed with some of these points had they remained in the discussion but they didn't. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I think that very minimal closure may be going too far the other way. If you look at what I suggested in response to JoshuaZ, it actually is very short, and doesn't go much farther than what you suggested, except that it ends with a list of suggestions for Cirt. Not findings of fact, but suggestions. It seems to me that this is the purpose of RfC/U, and that closing it the way that you suggested would actually be a kind of cop-out, and has the effect of "forgetting" the views of everyone who contributed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see Griswaldo's point, but I do think that the closing statement should have some summary of what transpired for those who won't slog through the whole thing. I'm by no means wedded to the draft I posted. Perhaps we can come up with something in the middle? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cirt made a statement in response to Macwhiz's revised view at RfAR. I think we should note that, and add that the matter went on to arbitration. Beyond that we can just say that there was a wide spectrum of opinion, from editors seeing very serious problems indeed to editors feeling the RfC/U was bad faith and over the top. --JN466 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that those things should be in the first paragraph, but I don't think that it precludes the bullet list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about this, I'm open to formulating the closure in different ways, but I become increasingly opposed to simply saying no consensus, sent to arbitration. It isn't even an honest summary of all that happened here. There was a lot of discussion here, and RfC/Us are expected to generate some sort of conclusions about what is expected of the editor who was the subject. I suppose an alternative approach would be to summarize each of the two polar views. Have about 3–4 sentences describing the view that the RfC was without merit, quote the "clusterfuck" comment, and point out alleged incivility by those who criticized Cirt. Then have another 3–4 sentences describing the view that Cirt has been pretty much guilty as charged, including all the wikibombing and BLP violations and mistreatment of new editors, the inadequate responses, and the possible Arb sanction violations. Then conclude no consensus and sent to arbitration. I guess I could go along with that. But do we really want to have it come to that? I think not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just going to throw this out there but I have seen Ironholds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) makes some really good WP:TL;DR evaluations of sticky situations. I found two examples off the top of my head Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blame Israel first. I can't think of any disputes or particular friendships between him and Cirt or any other major player here. So rather than endless debates of finding the perfect summary would some one like me to invite him here and give a summary? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with participants using the talk page to draft a recommended closing statement. As I suggested above, I kind of figured we should have an admin do the actual closing. The arbitration case has not yet formally opened (it will when the evidence page is created, I think). So let's leave this discussion to continue, if anyone wants, just a bit more, and then I think it would be fine to ask Ironholds to do the actual closure, with the freedom to use the suggested statement, or to modify it, or to throw it out and say something else. Is that fair? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Chances are this entire line of discussion is just going to create more disputes, and I don't see any reason why Ironholds or anyone else should be put in that position. The case has been accepted, and arbitrators have already looked through much of the content here before deciding whether to accept or decline. This RfC/U concludes due to relative inactivity (which will be in a couple of days) or upon the case pages being opened - whichever comes first. So rather than continuing to spend time here, it would probably be better for all participants to start working on the evidence they will wish to submit in the respective cases. Each individual will have an opportunity to provide their own summation of the RfC/U either in evidence or at the workshop if they wish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested draft

After thinking about the points raised above, I'm going to suggest the following as a possible closing statement. There's nothing binding or official about this—just one editor's opinion, nothing more. Your mileage may vary, as they say.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Chances are this entire line of discussion is just going to create more disputes, and I don't see any reason why Ironholds or anyone else should be put in that position. The case has been accepted, and arbitrators have already looked through much of the content here before deciding whether to accept or decline. This RfC/U concludes due to relative inactivity (which will be in a couple of days) or upon the case pages being opened - whichever comes first. So rather than continuing to spend time here, it would probably be better for all participants to start working on the evidence they will wish to submit in the respective cases. Each individual will have an opportunity to provide their own summation of the RfC/U either in evidence or at the workshop if they wish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I heard you the first time.

I heard you the first time.

I agree with you that editors shouldn't keep adding diffs or arguing about who was right or wrong here. I don't see anything wrong, on the other hand, with editors trying to wrap this RfC/U up, which is what my suggestion above is trying to do. As for how any administrator might or might not choose to close this process, I see that as being up to the administrator, but there is nothing wrong with me suggesting, here, some possible conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.