Line 400: | Line 400: | ||
Users who endorse this summary: |
Users who endorse this summary: |
||
#As author. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
#As author. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
# |
# — [[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 03:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
===Outside view by Griswaldo=== |
===Outside view by Griswaldo=== |
Revision as of 03:56, 28 June 2011
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
- Cirt (talk · contribs · logs), former accounts: Smee (talk · contribs · logs), Smeelgova (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
Cirt has displayed a long-term pattern of
- Using Wikipedia to promote outside political and commercial causes,
- BLP violations,
- Dishonesty and deceit
- Misrepresentation of sources
- Inappropriate canvassing on admin and user talk pages
Desired outcome
- Cirt will avoid any appearance of promoting outside causes and adhere strictly to NPOV.
- Cirt will adhere strictly to BLP policy.
- Cirt will be honest with the community.
- Cirt will not misrepresent sources.
- Cirt will cease inappropriate canvassing on admin and user talk pages.
Description
Cirt's editing indicates that his loyalty to outside causes exceeds his loyalty to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He promotes outside causes to the detriment of neutral, BLP-compliant coverage in Wikipedia. Cirt exhibits a pattern of canvassing and manipulation on admin and user talk pages.
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.
Evidence of disputed behavior
Promotionalism and activism
- Corbin Fisher
Article concerned: Corbin Fisher.
Before reading on, please review this article version for neutrality.
Background:
- Cirt created the article on 6 December 2009. [1]
- He nominated it for DYK and it was featured in this version on the main page on 10 December [2], receiving 4,800 views. [3]
- On 7 May this year, he deleted several paragraphs of sourced non-promotional information, with a misleading edit summary: [4]
- In response to concerns about his editing, naming this article as an example, Cirt stated on his talk page, “I came by this article organically, through my interest in the U.S. Supreme Court Case, called Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. That Supreme Court case was cited in another ongoing case at the time, Beck v. Eiland-Hall, an article I successfully took to WP:GA status. Through research on one of the free speech lawyers from that case, I improved the article on attorney Marc Randazza. After performing research on that article, I came by the topic of Corbin Fisher.”
- As ArbCom (and many others now) are aware, this was misleading. Cirt stated this month to Shell Kinney and SlimVirgin that after OTRS communication with Marc Randazza on an unrelated matter, Randazza (Corbin Fisher's general counsel) e-mailed Cirt about creating an article on the company. Cirt has said he replied to Randazza that he "would not accept any form of payment for the article". Cirt refused to disclose the actual conversation, saying Randazza wants the conversation to remain private, and then also refused to disclose just his half of the conversation.
- Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson (Republican primary in Riverside County, a Republican stronghold, for the California State Senate)
Articles concerned: Kenneth Dickson (AfD1, AfD2), Joel Anderson.
Before reading on, please review this article version for neutrality and also review Kenneth Dickson (or, if you don't have access to the deleted article, review the comments at the second AfD that led to its deletion).
Background:
- Dickson and Anderson ran in the June 2010 election against Jeff Stone, who is considered friendly to Scientology by Anonymous. (Stone does not have a Wikipedia article.)
- Prior to the election, Cirt wrote a highly flattering article on Kenneth Dickson, which was featured on DYK. The article was deleted after the election by User:John Vandenberg. Delete votes in the AfD cited WP:MASK, its being "pufftastic", "an advertisement for someone with an eye on political office", and Dickson’s lack of notability.
- On 22 April 2010, Cirt also completely re-wrote the article on Joel Anderson, increasing its size five-fold in a single edit (thus fulfilling the criteria for a DYK main page appearance). The new article ended with glowing endorsements: "... a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento ... 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."
- It was featured on the main page on 26 April, six weeks before the election.
- On 28 May 2011, in response to concerns about his editing, Cirt asked other editors for an NPOV review. The comment by uninvolved editor User:Tomwsulcer on the Joel Anderson article was, "My quickie look-over of one article suggests the Joel Anderson article about a California state-senator is way too long for its importance -- that is, my guess is that a state senator should merit perhaps a few paragraphs at most, not a novel. My sense is the article is essentially an advertisement for a candidate running for office. The pictures of the candidate with his family -- essentially political WP:SPAM." Joel Anderson is now tagged for multiple issues.
- The election, and the importance of ensuring that Stone would not win it, were discussed on Anonymous forums. A contributor there discussed Cirt's Wikipedia work: "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles." [5] (Anderson won; Dickson was said by press to have done "surprisingly" well: [6])
- Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate (New York State Senate election)
Articles concerned: Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate.
Before reading on, please review this article version and this article version for neutrality.
Both politicians were discussed on Anonymous noticeboards. [7],[8]. Peralta was the candidate preferred, as Monserrate was considered friendly to Scientology.
- Prior to the March 16, 2010, election, Cirt completely overhauled Peralta's article: [9], [10], increasing its size 25-fold, and adding a nice image of Peralta uploaded by himself (compare the image for Monserrate). Cirt’s article featured a blue call-out box: “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 article appeared on the main page as a DYK on 13 March 2010, three days before election day.
- It used no critical sources, such as "Smith: Is Jose Peralta Really All That Much Better Than Hiram Monserrate?", New York (magazine); "Assemblyman Jose Peralta scored $500,000 in taxpayer funds for inactive nonprofit", New York Daily News. The article presently carries a voluminous template highlighting multiple problems (fan's POV, peacock, NPOV, advertisement, rewrite, unbalanced, too many quotations, and news release), placed by User:RightCowLeftCoast.
- Cirt also edited Hiram Monserrate, focusing on Monserrate's legal and personal problems at the time. [11][12][13][14] and others.
- Less than one week before the March 16 election, on March 10 2010, Cirt created a Wikiquote page on Jose Peralta, featuring glowing endorsements and no critiques, and placed it on the Wikiquote main page, where it stayed the entire week before the election. Three days before the election, Cirt published an article on Peralta's opponent on Wikinews: [15]
- Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant
Article concerned: Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (AfD1, AfD2).
- Deleted as a puff piece on a non-notable restaurant; kept as no consensus in the first AfD, after User:DGG edited it down significantly, deleted in the second AfD. The owner is a former Scientologist turned critic; Jimbo Wales commented in the AfD: "That there is a connection to Scientology here is quite relevant to any thoughtful understanding of what is going on."
- Santorum
Following press reports that Rick Santorum might be running for president, Cirt expanded Santorum (neologism) three-fold last month, to over 5,000 words. The article covers a campaign by columnist and gay activist Dan Savage that seeks to ridicule Santorum by associating his name with anal sex. Cirt's expansion caused concern on the Wikien-l list and among many other editors, including Jimbo Wales, that the article and thus Wikipedia had become part of the campaign. See Signpost report, Explosion of editing related to the santorum neologism noted. In addition to expanding the article, Cirt created three new templates that included the term santorum, and added it to a fourth (Template:LGBT slang), adding 300 in-bound links to the article, which presently is the top Google result for Santorum's surname:
- On 10 May, Cirt created Template:Dan Savage [16]
- On 11 May, Cirt created Template:Political neologisms, with santorum included, and added it to about 120 articles [17] (that template has since been deleted, deletion discussion)
- On 15 May, Cirt added the santorum article to Template:LGBT slang: [18], creating further in-bound links
- On 15 May, Cirt created Template:Sexual slang [19], comprising about 120 general, LGBT and pornography slang terms, including santorum, and then added it to these 120 articles
In late May, Cirt promised SlimVirgin at AN/I that he would avoid editing in a manner that might be construed as using Wikimedia for political activism. He then immediately proceeded to nominate seven articles on Dan Savage for DYK, each hook linking to articles covering the santorum controversy. Two ran on the main page in a single day. SlimVirgin felt this was inconsistent with the promise he had just given and expressed concern about it on Cirt's talk page ([20]).
Cirt also created a Wikiquote page on Santorum, including self-published sources: [21].
Cirt's unilateral editing of the santorum (neologism) article caused significant disruption, leading dozens of editors to make an enormous investment of time to put the article right again. It resulted in 130 postings on the Wikien-l mailing list alone, a long BLP/N thread, an RfC, and a request for arbitration filed by User:Coren. Following Cirt's departure from the article, it is now, after community-based editing, back from over 5,000 to under 1,500 words.
BLPSPS concerns
Article concerned: Santorum (neologism)
- Cirt cited, and quoted, two extremely graphic self-published erotic books in the article, and reintroduced them, with quotes, after they were deleted as self-published sources. Other sources he cited in this article with BLP implications included "Gonzo Crosswords", a geek limerick contest, and an erotic novel first published in 1971 that was unrelated to the topic, with a long quote (the novel, also used in Wikiquote, had misspelt "sanctorum").
Article concerned: Mace-Kingsley Ranch School
- 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
- On 11 June 2010, Cirt added a self-published website to the article, in violation of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP, and argued on 8 December 2010, when another editor used the same source in an article he was working on, that it is unreliable for BLP.
- On 11 June 2010, Cirt added a self-published website to the article, as an external link, in violation of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP.
- On 16 June 2010, Cirt added a Usenet post copied on the personal website of a WP user who is topic-banned from Scientology as an external link, in violation of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP.
Similar uses of self-published YouTube videos making statements about third parties in other articles:
- 24 February 2009 (Mark Bunker and Jason Beghe YouTube videos, still present in mainspace).
- 24 February 2009 One video removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011, another is still present in mainspace.
- 27 November 2009. Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.
- 8 November 2009. Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.
- 25 April 2010 Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.
- 27 May 2010 Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.
Similar:
Cirt was the original uploader of all of these YouTube videos in Commons.
Other BLP concerns
Article concerned: Meade Emory
- Cirt reverted an edit that removed a clear BLP violation, reported the other user as a vandal and had them blocked. See concerns expressed by User:Scott MacDonald in this thread, User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#BLP_violating_use_of_rollback
Article concerned: List of Scientologists
- Cirt insisted on including Gloria Gaynor ([25][26] (see BLPN), Jada Pinkett-Smith ([27][28][29]talk page discussion) and Chaka Khan ([30][31][32]) in List of Scientologists, based on poor and/or misrepresented sources. All three were removed after community discussion.
Misrepresentation of sources
Article concerned: Santorum (neologism)
- On 11 May 2011, Cirt added the wording,
The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".
- On 13 May, he also added this wording to the lead. It led many editors to believe the word is listed in this 2,000-page reference work, which it is not. The putative listing was a factor in discussions on whether the article should be named for the word, or the campaign. In fact, the dictionary only discusses the term in its introduction, as an example of the type of term its makers had decided not to include. The dictionary is expensive, and was difficult for other editors to access.
- On 4 June, the source was queried, and a source quote requested. Cirt provided a partial quote—he said it would be too much typing to provide more—and retired from the article after being asked to provide more context [33][34][35].
- The entirety of the relevant source wording is:
As we drew from written sources, we were also mindful of the possibility of hoax or intentional coinings without widespread usage. An example of a hoax is the 15th November, 1992, article in the New York Times on the grunge youth movement in Seattle. The article included a sidebar on the 'Lexicon of Grunge'. The lexicon had an authentic ring, but turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a record company employee in Seattle. An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.
- Cirt misrepresented another source in this edit, writing 'Joshua Gunn described santorum as, "the curiously foul and flowerly, 'frothy' substance created by the intermingling of lubricant and fecal matter during anal play"'. In fact the source says, in a footnote, "Coincidentally, Dan Savage has dubbed the curiously foul and flowery, 'frothy' substance created by the intermingling of lubricant and fecal matter during anal play ‘‘santorum,’’ in honor of Senator Rick Santorum. My thanks to Mirko Hall for this reference."
Article concerned: Everything Tastes Better with Bacon
- This article has just been at WP:FAC. It states, "The book received positive reviews, and its recipes were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004. ... Several recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004: The Year's Top Picks from Books, Magazines, Newspapers, and the Internet."
- The number of recipes included in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004 is two. [36]
Article concerned: Xenu
- While Cirt has cited, linked and embedded self-published sources, including personal YouTube videos, he argued here that J. Gordon Melton, widely acknowledged as one of the foremost scholars of religion, was a "questionable" and "unreliable" source for Wikipedia. This turns WP:IRS on its head—Melton is the second-most prolific contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica.
Evading scrutiny
- Statement at RfAr
At the recent Request for arbitration initiated by User:Coren, Cirt asked on 12 June to be excused from any arbitration case on compassionate grounds, due to a family crisis that required his attention: [37][38]. Cirt posted another statement on 14 June, saying he would generally edit less from now on, and shift focus.
The same day, he began proposing article collaborations to other editors, including two arbitrators (see Canvassing, below). Cirt never stopped editing Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects: [39][40][41][42][43][44][45]
He has made approximately 2,000 edits to Wikipedia since posting his request to be excused on compassionate grounds less than two weeks ago, and shepherded Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (nominated on 6 June, the day he first mentioned the family situation) through FAC. If he had time to make 2,000 edits in under two weeks, more than all but a handful editors make here in a month, he had time to respond to an ArbCom case.
- Promise made by Cirt to SlimVirgin
Cirt promised SlimVirgin on 27 May he would avoid editing in a manner that might be perceived as promotional. SlimVirgin was satisfied, but then posted to Cirt's talk page on 6 June because she felt he had not kept to it.
- Promise made by Cirt to Cool Hand Luke, Roger Davies, Lar, Chase me
In February 2011, the above named admins and arbitrators discussed their concerns about Cirt's sock-hunting with him. See Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug#Comment_on_the_table, Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug#Scientology_major. The discussion ended as follows:
- "You're drawing up a list of 'correlation points', as well as bringing in old accusations against users who have been cleared by checkuser. There's a risk of unconscious bias slipping in. Please; leave this sort of thing to AC and CU - the CUs are more than capable of building up a list like this. As an uninvolved administrator (without my arb hat on), I'm asking you to stop.—User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
- " ... you really need to step away from all things Scientology. That includes sockhunting. Leave it to others.—User:Lar
- "I have stepped back, I will continue to step back, I have removed hundreds of pages from my watchlists. I have removed this page from my watchlist. I will not be active with looking into socking in this area in the future.—User:Cirt
On 19 June, Cirt prodded a single-purpose account, Startwater (talk · contribs), which made its first edit on 18 June 2011, to open a sockpuppet investigation against the same user that was discussed four months ago, without advising the SPA of the earlier discussion.
- Promise made by Cirt to Lar, Scott MacDonald
Last December, after the discussion threads BLP violating use of rollback and Discretionary topic ban contemplated, Cirt posted a Note about Scientology-related editing. He said he would shift his "focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular". His critics, User:Lar and User:Scott MacDonald, were satisfied, and even commended him for his decision. One month later, Lar and Scott MacDonald started a new discussion thread, Stepping away from Scientology articles on Cirt's talk page, because they felt he had not kept to it.
There is a pattern here. When editors raise concerns about Cirt, Cirt makes a statement, and everyone goes away satisfied. Cirt then does the opposite of what he said he would do.
Canvassing
In December 2010, Cirt posted to multiple admins' talk pages, using non-neutral messages, and asking for help in an arbitration enforcement request he'd initiated. One of the admins he contacted closed the AE request, forbidding Cirt's opponent, User:Delicious carbuncle, from ever criticising Cirt's editing again. [46]. That decision was overturned on appeal by User:Elen of the Roads. User:Delicious carbuncle then raised an AE request himself. As a result, Cirt was advised that a discretionary topic ban against him was contemplated, and issued two statements saying that he would step back from the topic area voluntarily. (As documented above, he did not keep to it.)
Cirt was warned about canvassing in the resulting AN/I thread, and promised not to repeat it:
Soliciting help at AE with non-neutral messages:
- Future Perfect at Sunrise,
- EdJohnston,
- Elen of the Roads, further discussion,
- HelloAnnyong,
- GraemeL, prodding admin for block: [47], [48]; [49]
- Jayron32 (prodding admin for ban),
- Fisherqueen, FisherQueen.
Prodding an admin to block his opponent:
Earlier ANI threads where Cirt gave similar undertakings not to repeat behaviour:
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Philip_Baird_Shearer_-_block_review
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Behaviour_of_admin_Cirt_in_content_disputes
Cirt has posted repeated strings of almost identically worded, fulsome "Thank you" messages on friendly editors' talk pages, each followed by non-neutral, oblique prods for the contactees to become active on his behalf (in this case re WP:BOMB, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing):
- 20:45, 24 June 2011 to User:Khazar
- 20:49, 24 June 2011 to User:Wnt
- 20:47, 24 June 2011 to User:Hobit
- 20:57, 24 June 2011 to User:Dcoetzee
- 20:59, 24 June 2011 to User:Ohms law
- Similar: to User:Hasteur, to User:Avanu, David Gerard and many others.
While Coren's request for arbitration was being voted on (12–19 June), and right after his 14 June statement and his asking to be excused on compassionate grounds, Cirt contacted a string of users, using almost identically worded messages—telling each of them that he has "greatly admired" their knowledge or contributions, and proposing collaboration on his Supreme Court project.
- 16:41, 14 June 2011 Newyorkbrad, [50][51]
- 16:42, 14 June 2011 Bearian,
- 16:42, 14 June 2011 Wehwalt.
He announced the project on several Wikiprojects; to another arbitrator, User:John Vandenberg [52]; and on 15 June to Legalskeptic, Eastlaw, Cdogsimmons. He contacted a third arbitrator, User:Casliber, on June 18 and June 19 for help at FAC—while there was an open arbitration request filed against him which he had asked to be excused from, so he would have time to attend to his family.
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Jayen466
Cla68
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
- --SilentBlues | Talk 14:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Summary accurately reflects many concerns I have had for quite awhile The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am especially concerned with WP:BLP matters here. Puffing a person one "likes" and making sure that those whom one dislikes is improper, to say the least, and the editing patterns on multiple BLPs appear to show such a problem clearly. Collect (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am also concerned about the BLP issues, as well as the general puff piece writing, but even more so with the fallout when people have tried to call him on it in the recent past (and I will write more on that later).Griswaldo (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Additional views by Cla68
Cirt's editing
I have always respected Cirt's skill at writing great Wikipedia articles. To be honest, I didn't mind too much that his articles had the effect of making Wikipedia probably the number one anti-Scientology website on the world wide web. My reasons were because his articles on Scientology appear to be acceptably balanced and NPOV, and because I don't have a lot of love for Scientology myself (this is hypocritical on my part, I admit, because I strive to promote NPOV editing in Wikipedia).
In July 2010, however, I became concerned about Cirt's efforts at what appeared to be attempts to denigrate celebrities by extensively detailing their Scientology activities in their BLPs. I mentioned it on Cirt's talk page (in that comment, I'm referring to this comment at WP:BLPN). I was really disappointed to find out in December 2010, that he was apparently still at it [56]. Getting caught a second time appeared to elicit a promise from Cirt to knock it off.
Cirt's actions with the Santorum article appear to indicate the same pattern of behavior. I thought that Cirt had written a fair and balanced article on Savage's campaign against Santorum. Nevertheless, I was troubled when Cirt resisted the suggestion to rename the article. In response to concerns from several editors, Cirt promised to back off. As the evidence above shows, Cirt then continued to promote Savage, his campaign, and links to the campaign article by various means including DYK nominations.
Cirt is an excellent article writer. He just really needs to abandon what appears to be a tendency to succumb to the temptation to use his knowledge of how Wikipedia works to engage in activism, using Wikipedia as a promotional mechanism. If Cirt promises once again to correct the behavior in question, then he needs to stick to it this time, or I think Cirt should lose the privilege of being allowed to edit Wikipedia.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with the fourth paragraph. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. --JN466 00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Griswaldo (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Cirt's enablers
I believe that one of the reasons that concerns about Cirt's behavior weren't adequately addressed before now is because, unfortunately, a few Wikipedia editors have facilitated or enabled some of Cirt's questionable activities in Wikipedia. These editors may be driven by a good faith respect for Cirt's editing ability and work, or they may be motivated by a desire to support using Wikipedia for activism.
Forebearance for editors engaged in defending another editor's edits appears to generally be accepted by the Wikipedia community. In cases, however, where editors seem to be trying to shout down, bully, intimidate, or interefere with another editor's attempts to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution system, then these editors are going too far. One indication of when this is occurring is when editors "attack the messenger". The editors listed below, in my opinion, have crossed the line in this regard (listed in alphabetical order):
(Under construction: will list editors with diffs)
Response
This is a summary 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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Semi-involved view by Wnt
A comment on my talk page is cited above, but I do not feel that I was asked or urged to do anything. My motivation is first and foremost in maintaining the freedom of editors to write about what they are interested in.
I am disgusted by the nature of this document, which attacks someone with many thousands of edits by dredging up every little controversy and argument over a period of years and tries to reopen them and string them all together. It's a roundup of every possible issue to attack someone over minutiae.
There are charges here which should simply be dropped, not for lack of evidence, but because they are no crime. Writing up an article about something you like and submitting a DYK on it is the right of every Wikipedia editor. Merely denying the DYK because it is promotional is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500, when you consider that we're quibbling over one-line blurb with fair odds of appearing beneath a featured ad for the latest video game. How could we even contemplate acting against an editor merely for offering a DYK suggestion to the right forum, when it is up to the forum to say yes or no in any case?
Likewise, how can we contemplate accusing Cirt of "having someone blocked"? If you think the block was wrong, go complain to Ged UK (who applied it) on his talk page like anyone else.
Some of the most damning allegations regarded non-neutrality in the handling of articles about living persons. For example, yes, as indicated above, Cirt removed a claim that Corbin Fisher sued 40,000 people. I see it's since come back in the article. Problem: as said in the talk page, he didn't actually sue them, at least not yet. And the source doesn't say he sued them. A person would be more likely to be accused of high crimes and misdemeanors for adding this text than removing it - if this were an article about a Republican candidate, this text would have been deleted within 3 minutes. Another article is criticized as being too positive because he didn't add a reference from the New York Daily News saying someone mishandled $500,000. As someone said below, AYFKM? Until we roll back the draconian BLP policy and encourage more direct reporting of sources, it's very hard to accuse someone of overt bias for leaving anything out of a BLP. (After all, it trumps consensus, NPOV, and common sense...) Certainly there are enough people making a business of taking stuff out, like over at "santorum", without sanction.
I cannot track all of the allegations, as some point to deleted edits, "secret" ArbCom emails, and off-site conspiracies I can't be bothered to read. I feel that so many of the core allegations are wrong or wrong-headed that I am far more willing to believe that the accusers are acting out of bias and/or bad faith than that Cirt is doing so. I think that this entire proceeding should be dismissed, in full; individual issues about sources and links can be pursued in their appropriate forums.
(added after endorsments 2-4): What JN466 characterizes in the discussion page as one of the most serious allegations, the WP:BLPSPS issue, I also find uncompelling. BLPSPS prohibits using self-published documents as sources for claims about third parties, and says to use caution using them as external links with the proviso that other policies prevail. But YouTube videos that have been released to Wikimedia Commons, which show the most well-known interview with a subject, were included there as files, just like an image. It is not established policy that Wikipedia should suppress a well-known interview of a person like Aaron Saxton in his own article just because he talks about someone else. There is a range of opinion on BLP, with Off2riorob on one end and me on the other, and the mere fact that he removed the link to a video doesn't mean that Cirt broke policy or should be sanctioned for posting it - especially considering that BLP was less malignant back in 2009.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Wnt (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- LadyofShalott 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Quigley (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) – You're perfectly right about BLPs. The BLP is a Catch-22 now; you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's hard to distinguish puffery from erring on the side of positive to avoid accusations of BLP violations.
- — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Peripherally-involved view by Quigley
Many of the disputes alluded to in this RfC are so far-flung that only Cirt and those who have been hounding him for years have the resources to make a fully-informed reply. However, if the recent spat over the santorum neologism is any indication, then Cirt's behavior has been exceedingly deferential, rule-bound, and accomodating, while his accusers have made extraordinary leaps of bad faith in everything that he does.
Jayen466 and Cla68 represent a faction that is militantly opposed to the existence of the article formerly known as "santorum (neologism)", an article that has long survived three AfDs, and has consistently shot down attempts to stub, rename, or otherwise mutilate its contents by an overwhelming majority of editors. Press reports about a subject bring many editors old and new to Wikipedia articles with renewed interest and reliable sources. Cirt's extra motivation to expand the article, as indicated in his Arbcom-l interrogation by SlimVirgin, was to protect the article from another AfD. His was a common and honest motivation for articles so frequently attacked.
Cirt's "promise" to SlimVirgin that he would avoid editing in a manner "in the manner that [she] describe[s]" was not an admission of wrongdoing. It was a defeated response to those who had pursued his work with personal hostility and outlandish conspiracy theories to try to ascribe sinister motives to Cirt's editing. From BLPN, to Jimbo's talk page, to the countless other places where the certifiers have caused the disruption they now blame on Cirt, Cirt's style has been opposite to the allegations. Without legitimate threats hanging over his head, he has given significant concessions to his pursuers on areas where he has built substantial connections; where other users have refuted allegations against him and impugned on the motives of the agitating editors, he has tried to accomodate their ever-growing demands.
SlimVirgin, Coren, and others' repeated overriding of community consensus on santorum by invoking BLP, Arbcom, and other esoteric authorities has successfully driven away common content-driven editors from the developing firestorm. As a result, few of us who have interacted with Cirt without the obsessively demonizing lens of the RFC/U certifiers are left to testify to his goodwill. Cirt is being pressed to prove his purity to a standard that few human beings could endure with sanity intact. From religion to restaurants to politicians, the RFC/U certifiers are presenting scattershot "concerns" and insinuations that add up to no conclusive evidence of promotion of any real life entity except Cirt's own bona-fide interests.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Quigley (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- "defeated response" and "significant concession": Yes, Cirt seems keen to disengage from controversy generally; understandably so after years of it, as you say. It appears that this tendency - that some might call "being nice" or "not being a dick" - is being used against him, provoking his withdrawal from ever more areas of the encyclopedia. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gamaliel (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Outside views
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users signing other sections (i.e. signing "Statement of the dispute" as a certifier, or "Response" as the subject) should not edit the "Outside views" section except to endorse any view(s) below.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by Collect
The RFAR recently made did not, in my opinion, stress the BLP issues strongly enough at all, and I suggest that this RFC/U strongly state to everyone that neither puffing a person one likes (political or otherwise) nor making sure material which properly falls under BLP in my opinion (scatological "neologisms" based on a person's name, for example) is proper as far as the editors here are concerned. Further, that Cirt appears to have engaged in both behaviours to an exceeding great extent, and is properly admonished by the community for such behaviour. Further, that those participating here wish all administrators to be strongly aware that being a "BLP zealot" as some would unkindly view those with such views on all BLPs, is, in our opinion, proper on Wikipedia entirely. Lastly, that while we all sympathize with editors who can not devote much time to answering such charges, we are cognizant of the number of edits made by such an editor. IOW, if one can make fifty edits a day, one is able to participate here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anent a comment made on my UT page - I did not intend in any way to suggest that Cirt created the neologism which was one example of the BLP issues raised. I trust no one inferred such from my comments. This addition is, moreover, not part of my comments to agree or disagree with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Collect (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- --JN466 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tarc (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hits all the main points. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with everything except the part about a scatalogical neologism falling under BLP. I'm reserving judgement on that for now. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Griswaldo (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, especially w/r/t Cirt's editing activity after requesting to be excused from the arbitration case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Outside view by Gamaliel
Some thoughts on the allegations above:
- The promotional tone of particular articles. Is this a problem that Cirt should address? Certainly. It is a very common problem. I've seen it many, many times in student papers I've graded. People are inundated with advertising and promotional copy and their writing sometimes unconsciously reflects that, especially if the source material they are working with is promotional as well. I fail to see how this is "evidence" of "loyalty to outside causes", however. The examples of politicians cited include both Democrats and Republicans. What cause is Cirt supposed to be promoting here? Bipartisanship? Or are we alleging that he is a paid editor for hire?
- Creation of non-notable articles to promote anti-Scientology. If creating an article on some obscure restaurant is a crime, we're all guilty. Even Jimbo, whose complaint in the AFD is cited above, has done it. Remember the Mzoli's Meats controversy? Plenty of people in the AFD thought that Cirt's article was sufficiently sourced and notable. Are they secretly promoting anti-Scientology too?
- Editing and expansion of articles related to Dan Savage. Isn't that what we're supposed to do here? Why is this even an issue?
- Too many DYK submissions on the same topic. I think this is a problem to address with the DYK rules, not a problem with anything Cirt did. People are going to produce/expand multiple articles on similar topics because that's what they're interested in and that's what they've researched. DYK recently featured multiple articles by me on female mathematicians and Yale graduates. Am I now an "activist" for those topics?
- Inappropriate sources. Many sources are mentioned above as if they are so obviously inappropriate that it is mindboggling. For example, a self-published YouTube clip from Aaron Saxton is cited as inappropriate. But what's wrong with that? He's talking about himself and his views. It's long been established that self-published sources by people are acceptable in that context. If you don't like it, campaign to change the policy.
- Manipulation of sources. Cirt wrote in Everything Tastes Better with Bacon "Several recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004". But his accusers counter: "The number of recipes included in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004 is two." Are you fucking kidding me? You should send me a check for the time I wasted reading that.
If you want to address whatever issues you have with Cirt's editing, I support that. But what I see here is an attempt to spin a whole bunch of non-issues and minor complaints into a pattern of nefarious behavior that is not backed by any evidence. Whatever happened to AGF? Why are we trying to turn positive things like creating and expanding articles into negatives? Every day there's some ankle biter trying to accuse me of this motive or that agenda because I made an edit he didn't like. It's frustrating to see established editors doing the same to an editor who overall does quality work. There's plenty of political ideologues who openly push a political agenda here on Wikipedia and edit nothing but political articles. I don't see evidence here that Cirt is one of them, and it seems that we're trying to punish him with nothing but a bunch of imagined connections and circumstantial evidence while leaving flagrant offenders unmolested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The fact that the creator of this RFCU has been heavily criticised for "Wikihounding" Cirt [57] does not fill me with confidence, either. This strikes me as just more of the same. As a side note, is it appropriate to post notices about this RfC/U to numerous user talk pages? [58] Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. If this isn't pointy behavior, I don't know what is. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree per my statement above. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Why are we trying to turn positive things like creating and expanding articles into negatives?" Exactly. In terms of writing encyclopedic text, based on large numbers of third-party sources, and submitting it to review processes, Cirt is, in my experience, an exemplary editor. The hard time Cirt's getting (to say the least) potentially sends a strong and worrying signal to editors who are thinking of creating and improving articles on controversial topics. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have to say the "you should send me a check" part got me giggling. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Outside view by macwhiz
While Cirt's choices in editing BLPs may need review, much of this RfC/U seems to be a witch-hunt. It looks to me like a handful of editors have made a hobby of finding issue with Cirt's behavior, to the point of stretching the truth to fit a predetermined point of view.
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. Cirt said that he had been in contact with Marc Randazza to get a photo permission, and Randazza suggested that Fisher would be a good subject for an article. There's no evidence of any favors changing hands, no evidence of payment, no evidence of anything other than a suggestion. While Cirt may have produced an imbalanced article from that suggestion, there's no evidence that this was the result of intentional outside interference rather than just a lack of balance in the editing. In the leaked emails, I found SV to come off as intensively combative, and I formed the opinion that she was not interested in considering alternative explanations. It seems to me that this RfC/U is laden with the same prejudice against Cirt.
Regarding Cirt's refusal to divulge his conversation: Cirt had been informed by a practicing attorney that said attorney did not wish the conversation to be divulged. It doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable to me that one would err on the side of caution and refuse to divulge the conversation in such a case. Neither SV nor Shell had the legal right to require Cirt to divulge conversations with a third party, nor to expect Cirt to expose himself to potential legal action by doing so against the express wishes of the other conversant.
As for the Dickson/Anderson claims: The RfC/U attempts to smear Cirt by associating him with the Anonymous forums, by quoting an anonymous third party as saying that they helped Cirt obtain photos. The quote is truncated; the poster actually said: "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles. It's a bitch. You have to have the photo provider sign some thing stating permission to use the image, and copyright claims acknowledged. Two politicians didn't even bother to respond, so no pix for them." In context, "helped" does not mean "I went with Cirt to go take photos"; it means "I assisted Cirt in finding the right person to obtain clearances from". That's hardly nefarious. What's more, it ignores the context of the discussion; another poster had said a few messages earlier "Cirt is one of us. He's also ethical enough to put the quality of the encyclopaedia before his POV." Cirt, as far as I can tell, is not an active poster to the forum in question, and I have no reason to believe he's a member. The conversation seems to discuss Cirt as an uninvolved third party that these other people believe is sympathetic to their cause... but one that is explicitly called out as not biased. However, the proponents of this RfC/U are using those comments out of context to support a very different view of Cirt.
Then there's the whole santorum witch hunt, in which we are expected to believe that it is unreasonable for an article's editing to become sharply more active following widespread media coverage of the article's topic. The RfC/U claims that Cirt edited Santorum (neologism) "following press reports that Rick Santorum might be running for president". It singularly fails to mention that those edits occurred the day after Jon Stewart made santorum one of Google's most-searched terms because of Savage's campaign. [59] By ignoring the sudden newfound relevance of the term to a significant subset of our readers, the proponents of this RfC/U paint Cirt's additions as being political activism. It also glosses over the fact that the article's abrupt reduction in size was the result of an edit made by SV without prior consensus, after her RFC attempt to garner support for an even more drastic change to the article was largely rebuffed by the community (which makes the statement "Cirt's unilateral editing of the... article caused significant disruption" rather precious).
Plus there's the RfC/U's attempt to besmirch Cirt for seeking support regarding WP:BOMB, an essay written by this RfC/U's original nominator that, in its original version, was a thinly-disguised polemic against Cirt. Said essay is up for deletion [60] with many editors finding it to be an attack page.
It is one thing to say "there is a lot of circumstantial evidence here" in an argument like this. But that's when the circumstantial evidence is neutral. The "circumstantial evidence" provided here in an attempt to show a "pattern" of dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, promotion, and assorted improprieties is not neutral; it's rife with omissions, point-of-view slanting, assumptions of bad faith, and presumption that the most dastardly alternative must be the truth.
So, although I do believe that there are certain editing choices that Cirt makes that need to be addressed, it is very difficult for me to take this RfC/U seriously, because it seems to me that it does not originate in good faith. It seeks to tar Cirt with every brush available, as well as a few feather dusters and the odd mangy dead pigeon pressed into service as a mop. I find that sickening on general principles. I find it literally repulsive—these witch hunts make me less interested in participating in Wikipedia—and so I cannot support it as it stands. Lose the hyperbole and the POV-pushing, the unsupported insinuations, and the general McCarthyism, and there would be something to discuss here... but no, not like this.
Users who endorse this summary:
- ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely.— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Noting the timing of the appearance of the word on The Daily Show should really put an end to any arguments of bad faith on Cirt's part in editing that particular article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very much so. Good catch on the selective quotation of the anonymous Dickson/Anderson post - that is an absolutely shameful piece of (I presume deliberate) misrepresentation. Prioryman (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't verified the bits about Jon Stewart and the Anonymous forum, but I trust Macwhiz is as right about that as with everything else here. Wnt (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree with the part about SV but endorse the rest of this comment. I wish I had read this one before I made mine, since if I had I probably would not have bothered. Says a lot of the same points a fair bit better than I did. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with special emphasis towards the fact that Cirt's editing on santorum was in line with community consensus, and that it was his opponents' editing that was unilateral and arguably disruptive. Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is feeling fairly witch-hunty. I'm not sure the degree to which it's appropriate to reference the leaked ArbCom emails, but there was one conversation between SV, Cirt, and Shell that went over many of these allegations, none of which were born out. Creating a lot of articles on a particular subject is not outlawed, and it conforms to Cirt's general editing pattern in uncontroversial areas. I didn't read the Corbin Fisher article as promotional. It may not have been NPOV, but most new articles aren't, as they're generally written by people who care about the subject and hold a view on way or the other. Liking porn is not a crime. If the article was made more neutral later, then what are we arguing about? That's what we do. Similarly, creating an article by request is perfectly fine so long as the article itself is good. As for Santorum, well, that got sorted out. I didn't see Cirt's involvement there as being inappropriate, at least not to the degree that would spark an RFC/U. This seems like a few people who don't like Cirt making a big stink about very little. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Every word of this hits the mark. While some of Cirt's choices aren't what I would have done in the same situation, there should be more attention on why some users are so very keen to find a conspiracy. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Witch hunt," fishing expedition, call it what you will. I'm only here because I was surprised to see an admin name that I associate with fair-mindedness and overall competence at RFC and, having read through the material supplied, I am left with the impression Cirt is a well-intentioned and utterly fallible human editor of Wikipedia. I'm sure compiling a patchwork quilt of mistakes made by any editor on Wikipedia would make for some very lurid reading at an RfC (I have ~1/10th the edits of Cirt and probably twice as many blunders), but I'm equally sure that that's missing the point. An RFC about this RFC might be more warranted than this RFC. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Outside view by JoshuaZ
There are possibly some valid issues in the complaint. Cirt isn't a perfect editor. But most of it is simply overblown. First, people need to realize that Cirt has a very large number of contributions. He is one of the most productive editors on the project in terms of FAs and DYKs and has done a large amount of work on other articles as well. It should not in that context be surprising if some edits in the large number are suboptimal. Even with perfect intentions and a completely memorized policy a few bad edits will likely occur. That's not to minimize the fact that there are real concerns here, the most serious of which seem to be the problem of voluntarily agreeing to stay away from topics and then not keeping with them.
However, overall, I have a lot of trouble seeing there being enough for an RfC. No single aspect of this raises to that high a level. I find some of the claims being made by the initial RfC as simply confusing. For example, Cirt is acused of both making promotional edits to various conservative politicians. At the same time, he's been acused of attacking Rick Santorum, a right-wing politician, and of promoting Dan Savage, a left-wing gay columnist. The overall attempt to paint a systematic pattern here if anything does the exact opposite. Unless Cirt has some of the most schizophrenic and idiosyncratic politics, the more naive explanation is that these are a few less than ideal edits which don't really amount to any POV being pushed. If there is a POV here, I'd like to hear a coherent explanation of what it is. Right now, I'm not seeing it. There's some claim being made that this is about Cirt's admitted anti-scientology POV. While some of the examples in question seem to be impacted by that (the Daryl Wine and Bar Restaurant seems to be the most obvious), there seems to be a real difficulty in some of the other claims seem to be extremely weak.
Now, let's look at the Youtube video claims. Again, some of these claims are valid. And there are real issues. However, they've been greatly overblown. Note that most of the claimed problematic Youtube videos did not involve any living people at all. I find it particularly interesting that Jayen listed many of these videos in his preparation page, and neither he nor Scott felt a need to remove them from mainspace. If they think that they constituted a BLP problem they should have been removed first. Why didn't they? For the simple reason that the videos in question were not BLP problems, although they may suboptimal for inclusion on Wikipedia. Still others of the videos listed are clearly things that both don't create any BLP problem and clearly add to the articles. The most obvious example is the "Anonymous" video directed towards the Church of Scientology. The video does not mention any names so there's no BLP issue. And the video itself has been discussed by reliable sources. Including the video here is thus fairly natural.
The claims made about misrepresentation of sources also has problems. Are we now considering a serious misrepresentation of sources if someone uses "several" to mean two? About an article about how to cook with bacon? Seriously? At this point I have to wonder if that section by itself sinks this entire RfC into triviality.
Another issue that seems be misrepresented in the central RfC is Cirt's pleading about family issues. His point in question wasn't that he was not going to edit at all. But rather that during a stressful family time, he didn't want to engage in stressful editing like an RfAr. This seems to be perfectly normal. Not too long ago, a close relative had to go in for surgery on short notice. During that time, I didn't reduce my editing but did avoid editing potentially stressful topics. Cirt seems to have done exactly the same thing. The claims about canvassing, like most of the claims here, also have some validity but the general problem is being grossly exaggerated. The editors that Cirt contacted about his Supreme Court project are people who have edited in that area in the past. Newyorkbrad for example is a lawyer by profession and most of his editing has focused on legal topics. I don't know in what universe telling relevant editors that one wants to work with them became "canvassing".
The claims about the Santorum edits also are lacking. As observed on the talk page of this RfC, the timing reflects Jon Stewart's urging of people to Google the term more than anything else, and many of Cirt's edits were clear improvements to the article.
So what do we have overall? There are issues here. Some are more serious than others. But given how much material is being thrown at Cirt it seems more like an attempt to throw mud and see what sticks. That's not helpful or productive. And it does make me worry quite a bit that part of this is connected to Jayen's prior history with Cirt, since that user has a long history of going after Cirt.
Users who endorse this summary:
- JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, but with reservations towards "agreeing to stay away from topics and then not keeping with them". The "agreements" that Cirt acceded to were impossibly arbitrary and subjective. How could you hold someone to a good-faith withdrawal from topics with "political overtones", especially, as I pointed out in my view above, when Cirt's accusers have made such stretches as to connect Scientology with santorum? Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's a surreal flavour to some of the allegations being made, and your middle paragraphs capture it. How, without POV-pushing, can someone complain about the presence of the widely-covered Anonymous "message to Scientology" video in mainspace? MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gamaliel (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Peripherally-involved view by Hobit
I don't know what section I should be in given what I have to say, so if someone outside this dispute wishes to move this comment, please feel free. In any case, I have two points to make.
First, I find that the attacks on Cirt have been much worse than anything I can see assembled above. Creating an essay as a personal attack was uncalled for and honestly should have prompted a block or two. If this goes to arbcom at some point, I'm hopeful that the two who primarily made it an attack will see a well-deserved boomerang effect both for the attack and the tenacious editing that kept it that way.
Second, Cirt needs to realize how his work sometimes does look like advocacy. I see it in a number of the links listed above. That line is crossed every day by any number of good editors. I don't see any BLP-violations (I don't consider tone to be an BLP-violation unless it's just horrible). But as an admin and a highly prolific writer he needs to be especially careful. I think those who have started this case have shown that that his work is occasionally too one-sided, but honestly I think I could make that case against nearly any prolific editor given enough time and patience. And wow, is there some serious stretching to get here. The bacon one is just so lame it's funny. That doesn't mean he shouldn't strive to improve--I think it's a valid knock on his work. But he is clearly a huge net benefit to the project. If he's prone to making articles too one-sided and not being able to see that, it's pretty easy for others to fix. Heck, I think he'll agree with the issue and is making an effort to get into (somewhat) less controversial areas where that issue is unlikely to be a big deal.
Users who endorse this summary:
- As author. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Outside view by Griswaldo
As others have noted Cirt is a prolific editor who does a lot of good work. There is no denying this. However, like the rest of us he's far from perfect. Unlike the rest of us he seems to enjoy instant protection and reaffirmation when he gets into disputes with others, even at times when it turns out that what Cirt is doing is by no means the best thing for the encyclopedia. To a certain extent that concern has been outlined above, but I want to focus on one specific aspect of this.
- Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant
When I first encountered these problems it was just prior to the first Daryl Wine Bar AfD. As I understand it User:Njsustain started to question the notability of the Daryl entry, one that Cirt had authored and User:Amatulic had subsequently plugged into the New Brunswick, New Jersey entry, where Njsustain first took note of it. Cirt's response to having his content questioned as a puff piece and an advertisement was to drag Njustain to AN/I to be flogged, and sure enough he was ganged up on rather quickly despite the fact that the Daryl entry was quite clearly non-notable advertising, for which it was righly deleted on the second try. It is notable that Cirt did not object to deletion the second time, despite fighting it vigorously the first. What was the difference? The restaurant had, by that time closed. That circumstance somewhat mirrors the Kenneth Dickson AfDs, which I was made aware off during the Daryl conversations. During the first AfD which Cirt vigorously fought, Dickson was still in the running. By the time the second AfD came around Dickson was out of the running and Cirt was less interested in defending his article. However what troubled me most about the Daryl Wine Bar incident was the use of AN/I to have an opponent flogged.
A few months later I came across another instance in which Cirt had dragged another editor (User:THF) to multiple noticeboards, after that editor opposed Cirt during an AfD of one of Cirt's articles. After THF's comments about the Werner Erhard article Cirt decided to involve himself in a matter that THF was already deeply embroiled and intimately so accusing THF of issuing legal threats at AN/I and of violating COI, at COI/N. Both claims were found to be completely spurious, and both surely looked an awful lot like retaliation or attempts to gain leverage by dragging an editor in a content dispute to a venue where Cirt knew he had an advantage.
- Conclusion
I realize that these two incidents may seem minor in light of everything else being discussed here but I think they exemplify something more serious. If you have a look at other incidents mentioned in this RFC you will undoubtedly see some of the same tactics employed by Cirt and/or by his supporters. Those who oppose Cirt's articles end up being accused of behavioral policy violations, especially things like WP:HOUNDING, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, but certainly not limited to those (see above). These people are often dragged to noticeboards where they are ganged up on or warned sternly on their talk pages by admins. While I can accept that I might be wrong about the quality or encyclopedic value of some of Cirt's work, I cannot accept this kind of bullying, which I believe is made possibly by abusing our core mechanisms of dealing with disruption (noticeboards, admin authority, etc.). Again, I want to stress that Cirt is clearly a top notch content contributor and an asset to Wikipedia, but that should not prevent us from looking at his flaws, especially when they are also enabled by others in the community, however unconsciously that might be happening. Cheers.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Griswaldo (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- A longstanding pattern. I recall one user in particular (User:PelleSmith) who retired from Wikipedia because of the harassment—he had left Wikipedia by the time his content argument (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Midwest_Book_Review) was vindicated by other editors, notably User:DGG. That, too, concerned an issue of promotionalism. It was sickening. --JN466 03:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.