MickMacNee's tenure at Wikipedia has been characterized by edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, aggression, ultra-deletionist activism such as badgering editors who offer "keep" opinions at AFD, and other disruption. He's been repeatedly blocked for this behavior[6], culminating in an indefinite block in October 2010 which Scott MacDonald unilaterally reversed several days later, knowing that WP:WHEEL precluded immediate reblocking. Last month, he was blocked for two weeks, but this block was again shortened. Most recently, his behavior at WP:ITN/C has been deplorable. He took action to deliberately provoke anger, and threatened to incite vandalism to an article solely in retaliation for a disagreement with another editor: "the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine."[7] "Your damn right, the only way I will bother to update that article now, to the letter of the ITN requirements, is to get it onto the Main Page, and thus have a flood of editors arriving there to make piss poor edits to it and waste your time having to revert them."[8]. The most immediate issue has been discussed at AN/I, without any conclusive resolution. MickMacNee's response to a proposed editing restriction was so hostile and aggressive as to convince the administrator proposing it to block himself for a month[9]. Every attempt to resolve this situation short of arbitration has failed. Chester Markel (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

It is my opinon that the problem with Mick McNee has two parts. The first is that Mick seems to believe that the use of expletives is the normal course of everyday speech: thus, his interactions with other editors are rife with "fucks" and "goddamnns" and other expletive expressions. It is my observation that Mick, for whatever reason, does not see these as uncivil speech. Thus, the first goal here might be to teach McNee the difference between formal speech and unexpurgated colloquial speaking. It seems certain from Mick's interactions here that strong speech is the norm he is is exposed to, but educated and intelligent people recognize thar differences in speech are necessary in differing circumstances: one does not speak the same way at the Royal Ball as one does in the local pub.

it would be nice if Mick, who is not an unintelligent person, were to recognize that Wikipedia, while by far not the royal ball, is also not the local pub, and requires discourse which is somewhere between those two extremes.

If Mick cannot bring himself to understand this, then I'm afraid he's essentially useless to the project. Wikipedia is not the Royal Ball. but it's not a pub debate either. It's a semi-academic encyclopedia written by the avergae punter, but one who understands how to cite sources, write without a POV, and not carry political and social preconceptions into the writing. Mick's prejudices are manifest in his writing and his behavior. If he can back off from them, fine, but if he cannot, he should not be editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by roux

I'm not involved, but seeing as I was on this page anyway...

As someone whose fucking language often extends to the fucking colourful, it's worth noting that in many parts of the world (specifically the UK, and those of us raised by people from there) swearing is not per se an uncivil mode of discourse. It's just fucking words. While BMK's comment above that MMN needs to fucking understand that some fucking language isn't fucking appropriate in some fucking circumstances, that's a two-way fucking street. BMK (and others) need to fucking understand that the use of certain fucking words doesn't necessarily fucking mean that there's any incivility intended or fucking implied. MickMacNee's use of fucking language is a fucking red goddamn herring. Is the intent behind his words incivil? Is he intransigent in adopting attitudes--not specific language--which are conducive to a fucking collaborative environment? Is he editwarring or otherwise acting against fucking policy? Those are the fucking questions which need to be fucking answered, not his word choice. → ROUX ₪ 08:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scott MacDonald

I've no idea why I've been cited. I unblocked Mick after a protracted discussion 6 months ago. Some people didn't like it - it was discussed to death at the time, but no admin sought to reblock. End of. I've not studied Mick's behaviour since, so no comment on that. I've previously had run-ins with Mick, he's his own worse enemy, but like Giano that means he builds up a circle of those seeking to bait and destroy. I (and every admin on ANI) declined to block him yesterday despite a lot of shouting (we can't be sanctioned for declining to do something) because a civility block was being demanded. Classic debate between the "but Civility is policy and should be enforced" and the sigh of old-timers who know civility enforcement is a fool's game. This is not a long-running conduct dispute afaikt, it is the persistent civility police coming for their usual suspect. Unless arbcom want to go back to the old failed "civility paroles" what the hell are you going to do here?

I'd appreciate my name being removed from this. I have no involvement here. --Scott Mac 08:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa someone ranting, and then refusing to accept an apparent consensus is only a problem if they edit war against it. Otherwise it is simply an annoyance. People flogging dead horses should be ignored, not arbcommed.--Scott Mac 10:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

The problem with Mick isn't about expletives or incivility per se - and if the focus of this ArbCom is to be that it isn't really worth spending time on (and the statements by Scott MacDonald and roux are therefore somewhat tangential). Per Casliber, it's the other issues. They all seem to come down to his inability to accept that an opinion alternative to his isn't a reason to explode into aggressive battleground disruption. This appears to lead him into some pretty silly behaviours (incivility, not accepting consensus, edit-warring etc.) In a recent discussion in Talk:United Kingdom, on a very contentious issue which has been a long-standing problem, his input was de-stabilizing and disruptive throughout and unnecessarily fanned the flames of the dispute with his intemperate language and unconstructive ranting. After he posted a number of lengthy bad-tempered polemics, a consensus agreement was reached which Mick didn't like but which had the support of 18 (in fact all bar 2) of the participating editors. Mick's response was to point-blank refuse to recognise that there was a consensus "because it's such a giant policy violating crap bag". In a sense Mick's bad-tempered input didn't, in this case, matter because everyone else ultimately just got on with the job and reached a solution. Of course, it needn't have had that outcome with a different set of editors. To me, this is his central problem: his behaviour is so disruptive and unreasonable when he thinks he's in the right that the disadvantages he brings to the project outweigh the advantages. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'@Scott MacDonald If he rants in a non-contentious issue, I agree with what you say. The problem is when he does it in an already contentious issue, where his behaviour can help to thwart consensus emerging. It's not just "an annoyance" if he de-rails the discussion. I said he didn't do that in this case ultimately, but it was a near thing. In fact, during the discussion he did begin edit-warring to try to get his way here and here but aadmittedly gave up when he was told "the fact you may not like the discussion is irrelevant, a discussion is taking place and a change has not yet been agreed". DeCausa (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Levy

DeCausa hit the nail on the head. The main problem isn't that Mick uses profanities or even that he's uncivil. It's that he reacts to disagreement in a highly disruptive manner.
When Mick has a strong opinion on something, he typically regards contrary positions as indefensible and downright insulting, no matter how many editors express such views.
Beyond his unwillingness to tolerate dissent or respect an outcome differing from his preference, he often refuses to even accept that his "wrong" opponents are acting in good faith. He's so certain of his beliefs' incontrovertible correctness (and the patent obviousness thereof) that he accuses them of maliciously advancing insincere arguments as a means of deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia. This has a chilling effect on the proceedings, with editors eschewing/abandoning the discussion to avoid being caught up in the onslaught. Mick then cites their lack of further participation as evidence that they intended only to derail his efforts by generating noise and are unable to refute his counterarguments and accusations of bad-faith motivation.
The most recent example, mentioned above by Chester Markel, is a discussion in which I took part (and opposed Mick's proposal) at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. The nomination was closed, but the thread has continued at Wikipedia talk:In the news. —David Levy 10:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strange Passerby

I echo what has been mentioned above by David Levy, DeCausa and Chester Markel. My experiences with Mick have mostly been limited to being at ITNC, where he is often a divisive, almost polarising, figure thanks to the way he argues his points. I agree very much that the problem isn't so much the incivility; it's the way he uses this incivility and turns it into disruptive rants against other editors who happen to have taken an opposing view. This was also a problem at the one other place I've encountered Mick, an AFD on an air crash where he refused to accept the "keep" view and badgered those !voting such and, if memory serves, started a retaliatory RFC against an admin involved on the other side of the discussion, Mjroots (talk · contribs). It seems to me that unless Mick is able to discuss his issues with a calm head and without resorting to assuming massive bad faith on the part of the other camp, he's not well placed to build an encyclopaedia. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rd232

Expletives are not the main problem. They bother some people but not others, and so discouraging them is best, as is ignoring them when they occur. Mick uses them more than most, but this is just a symptom of the actual problem.
The actual problem is (per David Levy) Mick's apparent inability to accept that others may in good faith disagree or otherwise act in a manner he disapproves of, combined with getting very angry about it. This tends to lead to personal attacks, especially in the form of various forms of accusations of bad faith, and a vicious cycle of not really listening to what people are saying, which sharply reduces the likelihood of disputes being resolved amicably. More generally, it leads to an aggressive tone and manner which fundamentally undermines the collaborative environment Wikipedia needs to function.
Civility enforcement is notoriously difficult, because civility is often subjective and selective attempts to enforce it can be used as a weapon which actually reduces collaborativeness instead of enhancing it. There are no easy answers, especially when the civility problem is not an occasional outburst but rather a general approach. Here's a novel one: apply a civility probation under the terms of which any editor may apply a specific {{hat}}-style template ({{civ-hat}}) to comments by the user, if the comments are uncivil. The user would not be able to remove the hatting unless they substantively rewrote the comment (assuming it wasn't replied to, in which case striking or apologising inside the hat), and if someone else removes the hatting in good faith it can't be re-applied. An editor clearly abusing hatting after warnings would be blocked for disruption. Yes, it's probably a bad idea, but good ones are in short supply.

Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept Long running User Conduct dispute, relatively divisive to the community, RFC/U tried previously, ticks off all the necessary boxes. SirFozzie (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - I don't have such a problem as others with expletives, but the other issues are needing looking at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; I've sometimes used expletives as intensifiers myself, but "the only reason [whatever], is to piss you off" is where I see the problem. — Coren ^(talk) 10:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Bagrotioni

Initiated by Fry1989 (talk) at 21:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Adelbrecht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adelbrecht#Arbitration

Statement by Fry1989

Here is the problem. Adelbrecht is under the distinct impression that just because he knows more about heraldry than myself, that any arguments I have are invalid. It started on the page regarding the Coat of Arms of Luxembourg, were he proposed to insert a new style of Arms, that do not resemble in any way the Arms as they are styled by the Luxembourg Government. Instead of seeking consensus for his change, he edit warred te the extent that the page required protection. He is now trying to force the "new flavour" on the Coat of Arms of Bagrotioni. This is the original look, and is in keeping with the style on the Royal House Website, while this is the new style initiated by the file's original author. My original edit to the page restored the original look, as was the consensus for some time, and Adelbrecht has reverted me 3 times because he is under the distinct impression that there is already consensus for this new style, which looks nothing like the original. I am therefore seeking mediation from the Community to decide which version is the appropriate one to use. I have not been able to try other dispute mediation methods as there is absolutely no civility between this user and myself, due to his attitude that because he knows more than myself about some ancient tradition, that in his own words, I shuold "leave it to the people who know things". Fry1989 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Commons does not transfer to Wikipedia, and just because an author of a file likes a new look, that doesn't mean it can be forced upon Wikipedia without a discussion on the new style. I have every right to upload the original style for discussion. Supporting the opriginal style, and asking for consensus for the new look, IS NOT vandalism. On the other hand. Adelbrecht has vandalism my talk page by reverting discussions I have removed from it. He is trying to force new styles and looks without discussions, and has been utterly rude to me, insinuation that I'm an idiot, Whose the real vandal? Fry1989 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "Evidence"? It has ALWAYS been my policy to remove discussions from my page that either are complete, OR are going nowhere and are insulting. If they are important, they can always be viewed through the file history. Calling it an attempt to remove evidence is really grasping at straws. Fry1989 (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adelbrecht

The problem is that Fry refuses to follow the heraldic tradition and the law of Luxembourg. I corrected this error, and I son't think I need consensus for correcting errors. To counter my correction, he gave me sources which proved that I was right. Some of the errors he created have been fixed by Katepanomegas, but others are still there. I have marked them in the file description. Katepanomegas, who also drew the alternative correct versions in his own style, has provided the text of the law on his versions.

The arms of Bagrotioni he keeps reverting were updated as per consensus and the author's intent, yet he uploaded a separate version just so he can avoid the consensus on there. Admin Zscout has approved this consensus. I have not seen anything on the royal site concerning the old version he is forcing on wikipedia.

I should have been the one to ask this arbitration. Fry is a disruptive editor who has been blocked before; his previously vandalism concerning heraldry has been pointed out by Roux n Fry's talk page. He also rebels against the MOSICON policy, and has started an edit war against Gnevin about this. Adelbrecht (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page. He has tried removing evidence. Adelbrecht (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Luxembourg problem has been ended. He has seen that he was wrong. The consensus about the Bagrotioni arms have changed, so that is not an issue for Wikipedia right now. Adelbrecht (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tangentially-involved roux

Vandenberg left me a note on my tpage saying I'd been named as a party here. It looks like my name has been removed, but I have a few general comments to make.

First of all, this will not be news to Risker (I'm guessing), but the most basic rule of heraldry is that the blazon is definitive. Any depiction of the arms which recognisably follows the blazon is by definition heraldically correct. Considerable artistic licence is permitted; one may look at e.g. the Arms of Canada and evolution thereof; in the 1950's, without changing the blazon, the version in official use was slightly redrawn. The previous version, however, was still heraldically correct, though the official depiction was changed to fit The Queen's personal preferences.

Second, there is a trend amongst heraldists and heraldic artists on Wikipedia to perhaps prize the above consideration over that of real-world applications. I would argue in a general sense that heraldic depictions which follow official usage (particularly when we are discussing such high-level achievements of arms) should be preferred over those which are, strictly speaking, heraldically correct. For example, one could describe the logo of FedEx, and then generate a drawing from it, which would be fairly similar to the actual corporate logo and thus accurate in one sense, while missing the point entirely. As COAs at the state level are functionally indistingushable from corporate logos (and other forms of identification), we should err on the side of what the officials use; to do otherwise is to subtly and unintentionally mislead our readers.

Third, this dispute has been elevated to ArbCom prematurely, and with a bunch of mistakes along the way. Both Adelbrecht and Fry1989 are editwarring, and frankly both should be blocked for doing so. Editwarring is not new to Fry (and anyone interested can look at my block log to see I'm not on any high horse here), and by this point I should think patience is exhausted when it comes to his actions. This is not something coming out of any personal animosity; Fry does valuable work on Wikipedia, and I recently mediated a dispute between him and another user which appears to have been resolved if not amicably, then cordially.

That being said, Fry needs to understand that when he is running into multiple identical problems, he should perhaps look in the mirror for the source of those problems. To be more blunt: yes, Fry, experts know more than you do, and not all opinions are of equal weight. Particularly in a field such as heraldry, around which so many myths and half-truths abound.

And to be fair, Adelbrecht is being just as truculent. Reading the talkpage of the article in question (as well as Fry's talkpage), one sees only two edtors talking right past each other, both saying "I'm right, deal with it," with very little supporting documentation provided by either side.

Should ArbCom decline this--which seems inevitable--I would be happy to mediate the discussion between the two parties and come to a solution which reflects the sources. Heraldic tradition, official usage; these are both red herrings. Verifiability, not truth.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/2)

Awaiting further statements, but leaning decline. Out of curiosity, why is it that both of the Wiki(m)(p)edia versions of the coat of arms show St. George facing dexter, when the official coat of arms per the website has him facing sinister? Risker (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting on other statements, but I noticed that I don't see any prior attempts to resolve this dispute listed - is that correct? Shell ^babelfish 00:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline unless evidence of other attempts at Formal Dispute resolution have been tried. (ArbCom is not the first step of Formal DR, it is the last) SirFozzie (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline we have ample venues to look at this and gain consensus before coming here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Roux. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Roux. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, with my thanks to Roux for his offer to mediate. — Coren ^(talk) 11:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political activism

Initiated by — Coren ^(talk) at 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Given the large number of peripherally involved editors and administrators, it is probably unwise to make them all involved at this stage. I will notify the two principal venues of the dispute instead.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by Coren

We have, I think, a novel problem.

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

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

The problem is that many recent editorial acts made by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and a number of supporters have obviously been designed to support the campaign to attack the reputation of a living person by promoting the use of the pejorative. By promoting Savage himself, adding the attack word to a number of templates in order to increase its visibility [13][14][15] all over the course of six days. Add to that the large number of attempts to promote that walled garden to the Main page (GA submission, numerous DYK hooks), and it's self-evident that the objective is the attack on Santorum.

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

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

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

No opposition to Cirt not being officially involved

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

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

On good faith

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

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

About timing

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

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

Statement by JoshuaZ

I don't think this is ripe for arbitration at this time. This is primarily a content dispute. There's a fair bit of nuance in this situation. For example, I'm an editor who is in favor of retaining the Santorum (neologism) article, but support removing it from the sexual slang template. In that context, I think that Coren is demonstrating an assumption of pretty bad faith in his claims about Cirt and other editors. The basic fact is that Cit frequently produces a large number of articles of extremeley high quality about a narrow subject. It also isn't at all clear that his claim about trying to get things on the main page makes any sense, given that the DYKs in question about about Dan Savage, and don't mention Santorum or santorum. (Incidentally, the claim that those articles constitutes a walled garden is also wrong in so far as they all have many incoming links and are all clearly reliably sourced.) Moreover, it isn't at all clear how inclusion of the term on the template constitutes a BLP problem. Is it making a libelous comment about Rick Santorum? No. Is it making any claim about him? No. So what is it doing other than including a term? The only actual BLP issues are those directly on Rick Santorum and Santorum (neologism) and they are getting resolved with reasoned discussion, and are essentially content issues. There's no issue here that the ArbCom needs to intervene in at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

Personal life issues

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

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

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

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

ArbCom please see statement by Coren

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

Statement by Macwhiz

I am not a party to the dispute narrowly defined by Coren above, but I am among those who have been discussing the ultimate fate of Santorum (neologism), the nexus for this and a great many other arguments.

I understand Coren's desire to get a ruling on the template issues, and I see how the editing pattern concerns him. I agree with JoshuaZ that Coren's interpretation of Cirt's actions seems to assume bad faith. I agree that ARBCOM intervention on the issue of the templates may be useful.

However, I don't think the Santorum (neologism) issue is ripe for ARBCOM yet. There is an RFC underway that has yet to conclude, so not all steps in dispute resolution have failed yet. There's been longstanding community consensus to keep the article; it's survived three deletion discussions. An ARBCOM ruling now, short-circuiting the RFC, would seem premature. So, I ask that you consider Coren's question in a narrow and generic fashion.

In considering this request, I hope ARBCOM takes note that although Coren's statement could be read to imply some broad conspiracy to besmirch Rick Santorum, that has yet to be proven (and I WP:AGF that Coren did not intend for his statement to be read that way). While there are definitely partisan editors, there are also a great many who support retention of the santorum article in the reasoned belief that it is not an intentional attack on Santorum, but exists because Savage's attack on Santorum is unquestionably noteworthy and of encyclopedic value. I think this distinction has been at the root of many disagreements on the topic, and I would ask the Committee to be mindful of it when considering the case. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker

Regarding community sanctions: The argument seems to be that santorum is not a word, or if it is that it is not a neologism. Assume for argument that it is a neologism; in that case, it's definitely a sexual one, so it's not unreasonable to add it to Template:Sexual slang. Consensus on that template's talk page was running 16:6 in favor of retaining santorum when Coren unilaterally decided to remove it, citing BLP. [16] Shortly thereafter, Coren removed it from Template:LGBT slang, with no prior talk page discussion, again citing BLP and referring to Template talk:Sexual slang. [17] Given the lack of consensus that Santorum (neologism) violates BLP, those edits trouble me, and I can't see community sanctions arising out of Cirt's edits there. The Euroscepticism edit I'm not so sure about, but as the template was deleted, seems moot.

Regarding SEO techniques: I don't see how it's possible to AGF and still assume that these edits were an attempt at SEO. The question is, could a reasonable person make a good-faith edit adding the term to those templates? I think so. Whether or not the templates inadvertently cause SEO-like effects, and whether those effects are desirable, is a whole other question. Absent a clear reason to believe Cirt's edits were intentionally malicious, characterizing them as deliberately SEO or "egregious and vicious" seems unsupported. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie

I find the concept of the word santorum and its genesis pretty distasteful myself, but looking at it objectively, I can't find any Wikipedia policy that clearly and unambiguously demands its total removal, nor that would justify overturning the multiple AfDs. Whether or not the article was once created as "a revenge platform", I don't think it is—or at the very least, has to be—now. On the balance, I think we'd look worse ignoring or minimizing the phenomenon of the word than we do for having it. If ArbCom decides to consider the santorum BLP issue from any angle, I would say it should be a litmus test for WP:WELLKNOWN: Is the coining of santorum notable? Relevant? Well-documented? If so, your qualms and mine become exceptionally difficult to turn into a BLP claim. If Santorum (neologism) doesn't violate BLP, then deleting links to it on BLP grounds is shaky. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coren

My question would be: How can one clearly and without error distinguish between listing an article in a category template because there is a reasonable belief that the article is a member of that category, as opposed to listing it to promote the use of a term documented in that article? The point of category templates is to increase the number of links. "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia." How does one know which articles are "bad" to link? How do we distinguish between promoting a term and promoting the article? If Cirt had added links to those templates for any other article, we wouldn't be here, but because it's santorum, there seems to be an assumption of ideological motivations. Can a link be a BLP violation, when the article is not? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Activists"

Some parties posit the existence of an externally-organized campaign with a vested interest in this article, with agents infiltrating the editing process, as reason why ArbCom should accept the case. I would remind everyone about WP:CONSPIRACY. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sadads

I would like to first say that my sentiments towards this request for ARBCOM case is very similar to Tryptofish, Macwhiz and JoshuaZ. I have been following the issues on the various talk page discussion related to Santorum (neologism) since very early on. It is interesting the tenor of the community discussion that has followed, and I have recently attempted to withdraw myself from the discussions because the tenor of the discussion had moved away from BLP at the RFC and central discussion at Talk:Santorum_(neologism) and moved on to actual content issues. The RFC and related discussion on that central page has brought some very powerful insights into the communities understanding of BLP and related issues of notability of neologisms, and is still in process of ironing out where the current article Santorum (neologism) fits into our content on Wikipedia.

I feel that Coren's intervention against consensus at Template talk:Sexual slang has been extremely premature. So too is Coren's action to bring the discussion to ARBCOM, while hinting at rulings on BLP and other issues while the RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism) is still in process. In addition, It is also very disconcerting that Coren would suggest that Cirt and very many other experienced editors are somehow supporting a political use of Wikipedia. I would like to Assume good faith in Coren's actions, however, Coren's actions at Template_talk:Sexual_slang have been very aggressive and the comments have assumed deliberately malicious intentions by other users. His rhetoric has been very similar to several users who have overtly assumed bad faith of other editors, especially Cirt, in discussions related to Santorum (neologism). I am alarmed at the persistent assumptions of bad faith related to this discussion on the part of people wishing to remove reference to Santorum (neologism) on various pages and fear quite the opposite set of politicking then Coren, however the community appears to handle this when it crops up.

I feel that any intervention by ARBCOM at this point would be extremely detrimental to community proccesses, and, as Tryptofish points out, intervention could jeopardize community trust in the Committee, Sadads (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker, I don't think anything in the way of deliberate SEO techniques are happening. Cirt is always very thorough in developing content in swaths related to whatever topic he is researching at the moment, and his activities seem to be well within the standard efforts for curation of Wikipedia content (creating templates to deorphan articles, creating related notable articles, etc.), Sadads (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fetchcomms: First of all, cleaning the article off the map doesn't solve anything. If anything it looks like coverup or censorship. Addressing why you think this should be deleted, I think there are other underlying reason for the escalation of the articles issues: users with vendettas against Cirt are forum shopping. The same group of editors have taken this controversy as an opportunity for forum shopping for the same issues, many of them in bad faith, at Jimbo's talk page, the various templates Cirt has created, ANI, AN, BLP noticeboard, Cirt's talk page, Wikipedia-en, even Did you know's talk (and now apparently ARBCOM requests about content issues [18], I feel like I have seen this set of evidence several times now). We have a concentrated group of editors that show up in opposition to Cirt's content in almost all of the conversations and connecting them, no matter what the position and what the consensus of other editors is (as far as I can tell, Jayan466, SlimVirgin and Off2riorob are the most prominent). This has created a very large pool of people being drawn into discussions from all over the place, and finding their way to other areas and making decisions based on gut political opinions, misrepresentation of policies to meet certain ends and in defence against bad faith accusations (and these same gut opinions have led to edit warring). Recently, the conversations have all become focused on the talk page for Santorum (neologism), but some of the embers are still burning on some of the side arguments. Killing the central issue, is still going to leave a lot of users out on a limb, and a lot of personal pressure on various editors, chief amongst them Cirt, still under the surface, and not prevent a pot like this from exploding again. That being said, hardly any of this has to do with solving the problem of the template which brought us all here to comment, and many of these direct conflict issues have been overcome at Talk:Santorum (neologism) and other editors have moved in to make the conversation much more content focused. So if ARBCOM does become involved, which I still strongly recommend they don't, they should not fix that particular article (or even at this point to deal with individual editors, because I think the issues that is currently causing the most disruption now has nothing to do with any of the names mentioned), at this point the community is handling it in proper fashion, but nail down the principles that expedite the community handling this in the future that way people with grudges can't cause disruption in every forum in the community using policies to their advantage. But again, I think right now nothing is pressing or completely unresolved after a long and hard road, so ARBCOM should sit back until more of the issues have ironed themselves out, there are plenty of people finding balance at Talk:Santorum (neologism), Sadads (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: I have to agree with BeCritical, we need to push the community to actually solve these kinds of policy issues with community create policy, not some arbitration up on the bench. A lot of people are making decisions and opinions based on underlying personal opinions, and it seems like current policy does not help circumvent opinion based arguements in order to find a straight forward set of answers, Sadads (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad, I appreciate if there are reasons to take this case to ARBCOM, however I am afraid a rushed case would be causing difficulty on Cirt per his statement above. As Jayen has been yet to realize in his picking apart of Cirt's contributions, most of his recent activities have been low emotion, low intellectual input activities which fall into the editing Wikipedia to relax realm and gnomish activities. It is common practice amongst many frequent contributers, myself include, to participate in such repetitive low input editing as part of their own set of relaxation activities. Additionally, I am in the middle of writing 3 papers for school and preparing for a Wikipedia Ambassador training for this upcoming weekend, an expedited push through ARBCOM would make it very difficult for me to adequately form and write my thoughts on the subject and would have a decidedly negative effect on my ability to complete these other activities. As consensus has shown on Talk:Santorum (neologism), it is not the impression of the community that this is a need-for-immediate-response BLP issue, though some very vocal and ax grinding individuals are trying to make it that. I suggest that if the case does get taken up, I would ask that proceedings be delayed for a bit (at least a week) to accommodate some of the long involved individuals, primarily Cirt and myself (and perhaps yourself as well based on the initial comments you made), Sadads (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jayen466

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

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

I would like to note, however, that Cirt has made more than 500 edits to Wikipedia over the past 96 hours, as well as several hundred edits to other Wikimedia projects. There is an apparent mismatch between words and actions. [19][20][21][22] --JN466 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by BeCritical

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

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

Statement by pretty much uninvolved Fetchcomms

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

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

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

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

/ƒETCH COMMS / 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avanu

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

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

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

Statement by uninvovled Griswaldo

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

Statement by Orderinchaos

This is both premature and unnecessary - it appears to be over a content dispute. I find very little to disagree with in what JoshuaZ, Cirt, Macwhiz, Tryptofish and a couple of others have written here. There seems to have been a concerted effort by a few people - and they are a minority on the article's talk page - trying to blast the article out of existence, but I'm not seeing any situation for which BLP currently applies. I think there are some people who genuinely believe BLP should be about censorship, and that any negatives whatsoever must be avoided by Wikipedia. However, BLP basically means "cover it sanely and safely", not "don't cover it at all". It says as much itself: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." I cannot find any evidence that the content of the page is either unverifiable, non-neutral or original research, even though the entire subject offends some people's sensibilities. Interestingly, this article was the first time I'd ever seen the Senator's own response to it (something which presented him in a significantly more mature light than the comments which sparked this off), although the neologism and the broad circumstances behind it have been public knowledge for years. Orderinchaos 21:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Off2riorob

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

Statement by Cla68

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

Statement by Alanyst

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

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

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

Statement by ResidentAnthropologist

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

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

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

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

Statement by Flatterworld

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tarc

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

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

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

Statement by Will Beback

There are two background issues that seem to be involved here. One is that Cirt has a standing interest in editing articles related to cults or new religious movements, including Scientology,[23] Rajneesh/Osho,[24] Twelve Tribes communities,[25], est,[26] etc. Several of the editors who have commented here have also edited those articles but from the opposite POV. There may some axe-grinding going on.

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

As for writing articles about Dan Savage, we're all here to write articles. That's the point of Wikipedia. No one has claimed that the articles themselves were non-neutral or otherwise unsuitable for the project. If writing neutral, well-sourced articles becomes a cause for punishment then we might as well shut down this website. Will Beback talk 02:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

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

Statement by Wnt

There is much made here of alleged "activism" by some people who, over the past five years, have provided factual, sourced material about the santorum neologism and the campaign to make it a household word. No doubt there is some substance to it, though the conspiracy may well be as wide and diffuse as the American gay community itself, which generally took exception to Santorum's remarks.

But there is another activism, another conspiracy, which doesn't seem to be receiving due discussion. Namely, we saw the campaign to stamp out this article, or greatly reduce it, or suppress all mention of it, start just a few days before Rick Santorum's announcement of his candidacy for the American presidency. I don't believe that's a coincidence, and it suggests that one or more people on the other side here is very closely tied in with Rick Santorum's organization.

I don't think that ArbCom or anyone else should make a business out of suppressing all negative comment about Republican candidates. I think that we are dead center in the middle of the political cross-hairs, in territory formerly known as WP:WELLKNOWN. If you can't simply tell readers what the sources say about a major American politician in the middle of a presidential campaign without judgment or censorship, who can you tell the truth about? Wnt (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony1

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sandstein

I note with dismay that my concerns about the new arbitration policy about to be ratified, which enables the Arbitration Committee to make binding decisions about issues of content and governance rather than only about conduct issues, seem to be well-founded. So far, three arbitrators (Jclemens, Kirill and Newyorkbrad) have voted to accept a case apparently with a view to making a policy and/or content decision, that is, to influence how Wikipedia should cover the "santorum" neologism. While I agree that this is a highly problematic issue, the only acceptable way to address such content issues is through consensus-based processes as long as these remain functional, such as the ongoing RfC – even though I believe that the view of the current majority of participants in the RfC is mistaken. The only issue that the Arbitration Committee can legitimately address is whether there has been user misconduct in the conflicts surrounding this matter, and if yes, how it should be sanctioned. Such misconduct may well include systematic nonadherence to WP:BLP and other policies, but the Committee should defer to community consensus (if any emerges) about whether the current article is policy-compliant or not. Sandstein 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/2/2)

Accept This is an intriguing question: Does Wikipedia bow to or turn a blind eye to external manipulation of reliable sources by partisans in order to meet our inclusion guidelines? Does the fact that the target is a living person make a difference? Does the fact that this particular living person is a controversial politician make a difference? While I agree that this is a content dispute, the fact that it involves BLP in a grey area means it is appropriate for the committee to set how we are to implement the foundation's directives on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tryptofish, your point regarding sanctions is well taken. If the committee must act to fine-tune boundaries where good faith editors differ (rather than our usual role of conduct evaluation), then the appropriateness of sanctions is considerably less. While it's certainly possible something sanctionable would arise in evidence, I can certainly see such a case ending with no particular sanctions for prior conduct applied. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Awaiting further statements; I am aware of some of the issues that have arisen related to this matter, but do not consider myself fully informed. One of the questions I ask myself in differentiating content-only vs conduct disputes is "If this same edit/series of edits was made by an unregistered or newly registered account, is it likely that community sanctions would have been applied or at least discussed?" Perhaps those making statements may wish to address this point. SEO techniques are potentially harmful to this project regardless of whether they are applied by a new editor or a longterm editor; I'd also like to hear from those making statements as to whether or not this is an issue in this matter. Risker (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have strong feelings that the article in question is inherently problematic with our BLP policies. I understand that thanks to the campaign and the politician's own actions, it's widely spread. However, that does not release it from our own policies. It is my opinion (and my opinion only), that in the balance of things, the encyclopedia would be better off without this article. Wikipedia should not be used as a revenge platform. But that is only my opinion, and I don't think anyone wants ArbCom to rule on the content here, just the conduct. I'd like a bit more discussion if a RFC can at least ameliorate the worst of this issue, or if this has to be handled here and now. SirFozzie (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting additional statements or developments; I have limited wikitime right now but will vote in a day or two; leaning toward acceptance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. The Committee should provide guidance on the important BLP and related user-conduct issues raised by this case. I know that other dispute-resolution processes are being used; if they lead to a consensus outcome that would make this case moot, I am open to changing my vote, but that strikes me as unlikely. If accepted, the case should be relatively straightforward and we might consider putting it on an expedited timetable (one week from the opening for evidence). Without prejudging the case in any way, I agree with Jclemens that a decision need not include sanctions against specific editors to be useful in providing guidance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Is it unfortunate that people skewer politicians and other celebrities to gain favor or publicity? Of course. However, as long as this is a significant (and even accepted) part of American culture, we're going to end up covering these kinds of issues. This doesn't mean we repeat these stunts as if they were fact (i.e. good editorial decision making and BLP), but we can explore the instances and their effects. Whether or not this term should be its own article or covered elsewhere and what navigation templates it should be in is purely a content decision. I see a lot of strong opinions on both sides that are making this a difficult discussion - I think the best course is to let the RfC run its course (perhaps even with some additional advertising to get more of the community involved) and revisit if evidence of behavioral issues or intentional malice surfaces or the community gets stonewalled. Shell ^babelfish 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. pending RfC. Main thrust of case is content. Await more broad-based community input and urge editors to make their opinion known. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse per User:Jayvdb/recusal#WS and I've also been involved in this. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse; obviously. — Coren ^(talk) 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, primarily per Avanu. This appears to be a case where the coverage of a topic in Wikipedia has in and of itself become a substantive aspect of the wider, off-wiki dispute about the topic; and thus one where Wikipedia is at risk of being misused as a platform for advocacy even if said coverage appears, at first glance, to comply with NPOV. I note that the closest precedent we have for such a scenario (Regarding The Bogdanov Affair) is ancient in Wikipedia terms, and must be updated to reflect both more recent policy developments and Wikipedia's increased prominence. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 10:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ===Statement by Strange Passerby===
 I echo what has been mentioned above by David Levy, DeCausa and Chester Markel. My experiences with Mick have mostly been limited to being at ITNC, where he is often a divisive, almost polarising, figure thanks to the way he argues his points. I agree very much that the problem isn't so much the incivility; it's the way he uses this incivility and turns it into disruptive rants against other editors who happen to have taken an opposing view. This was also a problem at the one other place I've encountered Mick, an [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UPS_Airlines_Flight_6|AFD on an air crash]] where he refused to accept the "keep" view and badgered those !voting such and, if memory serves, started a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots|retaliatory RFC]] against an admin involved on the other side of the discussion, {{user|Mjroots}}. It seems to me that unless Mick is able to discuss his issues with a calm head and without resorting to assuming massive bad faith on the part of the other camp, he's not well placed to build an encyclopaedia. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
+===Statement by Rd232===
+*Expletives are not the main problem. They bother some people but not others, and so discouraging them is best, as is ignoring them when they occur. Mick uses them more than most, but this is just a symptom of the actual problem.
+*The actual problem is (per David Levy) Mick's apparent inability to accept that others may in good faith disagree or otherwise act in a manner he disapproves of, combined with ''getting very angry about it''. This tends to lead to personal attacks, especially in the form of various forms of accusations of bad faith, and a vicious cycle of not really listening to what people are saying, which sharply reduces the likelihood of disputes being resolved amicably. More generally, it leads to an aggressive tone and manner which fundamentally undermines the collaborative environment Wikipedia needs to function.
+*Civility enforcement is notoriously difficult, because civility is often subjective and selective attempts to enforce it can be used as a weapon which actually reduces collaborativeness instead of enhancing it. There are no easy answers, especially when the civility problem is not an occasional outburst but rather a general approach. Here's a novel one: apply a civility probation under the terms of which any editor may apply a specific {{tl|hat}}-style template ({{tl|civ-hat}}) to comments by the user, if the comments are uncivil. The user would not be able to remove the hatting unless they substantively rewrote the comment (assuming it wasn't replied to, in which case striking or apologising inside the hat), and if someone else removes the hatting in good faith it can't be re-applied. An editor clearly abusing hatting after warnings would be blocked for disruption. ''Yes, it's probably a bad idea, but good ones are in short supply.''
+[[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 === Clerk notes ===