Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
removing as declined per the net four rule
Line 3: Line 3:
<br clear="all"/>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
== Political activism ==

'''Initiated by ''' &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> '''at''' 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|Coren}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Cirt}}
''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.''
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C irt&diff=433892237&oldid=433886293]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ASexual_slang&action=historysubmit&diff=433892976&oldid=433891818]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santorum_(neologism)&diff=433894086&oldid=433893405]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*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]], [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119#Santorum]], [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive110#Rick_Santorum]], [[Talk:Santorum_(neologism)/Archive_2#Proposal]], [[Talk:Santorum_(neologism)/Archive_2#Proposal_to_stub_this_article_to_reduce_or_eliminate_BLP_violations]], and in the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-May/date.html wikien-l mailing list archive]. DYK discussions: [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_66#Dan_Savage]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Removed_some_of_my_self_noms]]. Prior template discussions: [[Template talk:Political neologisms]], [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Template:Political_neologisms]].
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum AfD 1]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum_(sexual_slang) AfD 2] (closing comment: "The result was '''hopeless, hopeless lack of consensus'''". (emphisis original by closing admin.))
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum_(neologism)_(3rd_nomination) AfD 3]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum_(neologism)_(4th_nomination) AfD 4] (closed pending outcome of RfC/Arbcom case)

=== 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 {{admin|Cirt}} 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Dan_Savage&oldid=428496056 Savage himself], adding the attack word to a number of templates in order to increase its visibility [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euroscepticism&action=historysubmit&diff=428548457&oldid=428102901][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ALGBT_slang&action=historysubmit&diff=429182658&oldid=417050818][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&oldid=429182057] 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 [[WP:BLP|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 [[User:DeltaQuad|DeltaQuad]]'s protection of both surviving templates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

;On acceptance
It seems clear that the Committee is just as divided as the community on the substantive matter, and the votes for acceptance reflect that. I understand reluctance about ruling on contents, which is why I wanted to make the case I feel should be accepted clear: It's not about ''whether'' we cover the "santorum" campaign, or even ''how it is covered'' that is at issue. I've no doubt that within [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] the community can craft a good article covering that rather notable (on the US scene) spat between a journalist and a politician.

The case I seek is about the ''manner'' of our coverage: whether publicizing the ''word'' used in the campaign as though it was a true coinage is, effectively, ''participating'' in a googlebomb and running afoul of both our BLP policy and our ethical responsibilities to remain neutral. I do not intend to bring the existence, name or contents of the core article describing the campaign to arbitration, nor do I think it should be.

=== 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 [[WP:AGF|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by [[User:Cirt|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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santorum_(neologism)&diff=432597704&oldid=432596674 diff].
#I also have stopped watching templates {{tl|Sexual slang}} and {{tl|Political neologisms}}.
#I changed my comment at a deletion discussion for the latter template, requesting it be deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25&diff=432279175&oldid=432196345 diff].
#I commented on the now deleted template's talk page, requesting the term in question be removed from the template [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Template+talk%3APolitical+neologisms&timestamp=20110603015547&diff=prev diff], I then actually did remove it myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Template+talk%3APolitical+neologisms&timestamp=20110603040034&diff=prev diff].
#I removed all of my DYK self noms from consideration at DYK [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=432804424 diff]
#I stated that I will no longer be watching or nominating to DYK in the future [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=432805810&oldid=432805694 diff]
#I requested that another nom already in the DYK queue be removed from consideration [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=432807146&oldid=432807044 diff]
#I removed my DYK self noms a 2nd time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=432808885&oldid=432808812 diff]
#I posted to [[WT:DYK]], requesting that all of my DYK self noms that I had just removed, not be considered as candidates, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=432809055 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 &mdash; 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASantorum_%28neologism%29&action=historysubmit&diff=433895199&oldid=432597704 diff].

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

;ArbCom please see statement by Coren
*ArbCom, please see this statement by Coren [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=433896877&oldid=433896367 diff]. Thank you, -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 15:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

;Statement on my Wikipedia editing
*I've '''[[User_talk:Cirt#Statement_on_my_Wikipedia_editing|made a statement]]''' on my user talk page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=434240371&oldid=434237214 diff.] -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 14:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

;Further comment
*I've learned from this RFAR how my actions can be perceived quite differently from the way I intended. As a sign of good faith, in future I'll be staying away from BLPs that have political overtones, particularly those that have anything to do with Savage or Santorum. I never dreamed my work would cause this controversy. Some editors may wish the matter to be resolved by policy, which is fine, I wish that process well. But my work on Wikipedia will be in other areas. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 08:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=== 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. // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 16:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

'''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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sexual_slang&diff=433736457&oldid=433735517] 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]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LGBT_slang&diff=433742324&oldid=429182658] 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. // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

'''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. // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 20:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

'''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. "[[WP:LINK|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? // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

'''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]]. // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

'''Response to Kirill'''
:I'm sensitive to Wikipedia's press reputation,but it should not drive our policy decisions; that would be a reaction expected of a political, not academic, body. Also, while a Google News search for "Santorum wikipedia" returns a large number of recent results, note that most of them stem from an AP news brief article that does not actually link Wikipedia to Santorum. A blurb about Santorum's presidential campaign is in the brief, as is a blurb about recent edit-warring over Sarah Palin's statements about [[Paul Revere]]. Someone checking quickly might not realize this and draw the wrong conclusion from the numbers. // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 12:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

'''Response to Iridescent'''
:I disagree that the dispute resolution process has broken down at [[Santorum (neologism)]]. An RfC is still pending. If it fails, it is almost certain that another, less ambitious one, will be proposed shortly after. ArbCom's Principles, under [[WP:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Consensus|Consensus]], are clear that the dispute resolution process, including RfCs, should be used. ArbCom's decision in [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions|Naming Conventions]] supports this. ArbCom is the final step in that process. The template issue may properly be in ArbCom's court, but ''santorum'' as a whole isn't ready, and ArbCom shouldn't [[WP:CRYSTAL|predict the future]] of the process.

'''Regarding RfC consensus'''
:Most !vote counts I have seen posted here are just that, !vote counts, not a search for consensus. I believe that the current !vote counts do not reflect consensus because of the flawed, overreaching question put forth in the RfC. For example, while the !votes are right now 54-73-10 '''oppose''', if you count support for ''parts'' of the proposal, I see 63 '''support rename''', 49–51 '''support merge''', 60 '''support some degree of rewrite''', 49–51 '''support move without redirection''', five '''delete''', and two '''TROUT ALL''' comments, and that's ''just'' looking at the !votes, not subsequent discussion. Perhaps ''some'' consensus is more doable than the !votes imply. // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 03:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I would encourage the Committee to either decline the case, or accept it only as some sort of way of formulating general principles about BLP, without using it to enforce any sanctions for conduct, or worse, preemptively deciding a content issue. Actually, I agree with pretty much everything that JoshuaZ, Cirt, and Macwhiz already said. Cirt has disengaged from the issue sufficiently that there is nothing to ''prevent'' by making him a party. If the Committee decides that the community has been incompetent to decide the content issues at the "neologism" page and that community consensus must be overruled to reflect the Committee's view of BLP, the community will likely come to lose trust in the Committee, and the consequences will be a fiasco. If there is a constructive role for the Committee to assume, it might be to define unresolved issues surrounding the question of how Wikipedia should deal with outside campaigns to subvert BLP policy, and then instruct the community to develop revisions to [[WP:BLP]] to close those loopholes. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:@Risker: I would imagine that it would make little difference whether a user were new or experienced when they have explicitly disengaged from the editing area. Yes, search engine optimization is definitely a big part of the discussion of the topic, but I'm not aware of any evidence that editors are trying to make it happen, only that it is a part of what Dan Savage and those who agree with him have done. There has also been discussion speculating that persons associated with Santorum's campaign might be editing for ''his'' advantage. Objectively, insignificantly few of the RfC respondents have been new users or single-purpose accounts. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:@Jclemens: Thanks, agreed. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As ArbCom ponders whether or not it is within their responsibilities to draft [[WP:FECES]], I thought I would look back at the RfC on the neologism article talkpage. At about the time of my timestamp, there were 129 numbered responses to the RfC. Of these, 5 have been challenged by other editors, as coming from users who have made few edits outside of this subject. It's hard to see how 5 out of 129 would subvert the process. I don't doubt that there are plenty of editors on both sides who have strong personal opinions, but I think it may be hard to find objective evidence that our processes are ''really'' being subverted by any outside campaign. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:@Rob: I figure I should acknowledge here that I read your comment back to me. I don't have a substantive reply, because I don't know enough about it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
::Just now, reading Georgewilliamherbert's statement, a light bulb lit up above my head. My best answer to what Rob said is: there should be an RfC/U before ArbCom decides whether to issue sanctions. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===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 '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content 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 [[WP:AGF|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, [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 17:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:@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.), [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:@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 [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Removed_some_of_my_self_noms|Did you know's talk]] (and now apparently ARBCOM requests about content issues [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&curid=22747298&diff=433918291&oldid=433915844], 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)]], [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

:@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, [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

:@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), [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Anthonyhcole===
I've been discussing this topic on [[Talk:Santorum (neologism)]] for about a week. [[Santorum (neologism)|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:<blockquote>"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." </blockquote>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 <s>topic</s> 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 ([http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/262299/rick-santorum-vs-the-internet?CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId|CSGroupId%3Aapproved%3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1 "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. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 17:50, 12 June 2011. Updated 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

===Statement by Jayen466===
This is part of an ongoing pattern of political activism on the part of Cirt, spanning several Wikimedia projects and including the use of the Wikipedia main page for activism. Background '''[[User:Jayen466/Political_activism|here]]'''.

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

Note though that Cirt has made more than 500 edits to Wikipedia over the past 96 hours. There is an apparent mismatch between words and actions. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: SEO is an issue, as the template creations, as described [[User:Jayen466/Political_activism|here]], added about 300 in-bound links to the article. The political neologism template was deleted after long discussions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Template:Political_neologisms 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

: (Clerk note) I have removed a substantial amount of content from this section, per the restrictions on statement length. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 11:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=434038315&oldid=434038134 Diff] --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 15:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Coren: Yes, the timing is crucial here. AGF is not a suicide pact. AGF would imply that Cirt's interest in the [[Jose Peralta]], [[Joel Anderson]], [[Kenneth Dickson]] and [[Hiram Monserrate]] articles, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466/Political_activism#Kenneth_Dickson_and_Joel_Anderson_.28US_election_candidates.29 their Wikipedia main page] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466/Political_activism#Jose_Peralta_and_Hiram_Monserrate_.28US_election_candidates.29 appearances close to election day], were also coincidental.

*Cirt [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_pages&diff=prev&oldid=1092449 added] [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jose_Peralta Jose Peralta], with glowing endorsements of Peralta, to the Wikiquote main page on March 10, just in time for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jose_Peralta&oldid=433306288#New_York_State_Senate New York State Senate election on March 16]. It stayed there the entire week.
*Presently, Cirt has three pages on Werner Erhard, another pet subject, featured on the [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikiquote main page].

The assumption of good-faith, accidental interest in these articles is emphatically contradicted by [http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/jeff-stones-opponent-ken-dickson.51898/ Xenubarb's] [http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/esmb-david-miscavige-and-wikipedia-damage-control.64249/ comment] that she "helped Cirt" with "the Jeff Stone/campaign articles" for Wikipedia.

Please, people, open your eyes. Our processes are being ruthlessly gamed here, and our main pages put in the service of one editor's political and social agenda. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 02:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Tony: I simply see no ''slow-down'' in Cirt's editing rate over the past few days, prior to this request by Coren. His last 500 edits occurred over the period [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Cirt 12–8 June]. The preceding 500-edit time periods are: 8–4 June, 4–3 June, 3 June – 31 May, 31–27 May, 27–25 May, 25–20 May, 20–15 May, 15–11 May, 11–7 May. I see that Cirt has an [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Everything_Tastes_Better_with_Bacon/archive1|article at FAC]], and has responded promptly to reviewers since nominating it on June 6. Any family matters have not prevented Cirt from nominating an article for FA, shepherding it through FAC, and editing at the same rate as in May. There is no question that Cirt does a ton of useful work. That does not mean we should close our eyes to the problems that come along with it. Cirt's expansion and promotion of the santorum article created one of the biggest disruptions this project has encountered in a good while. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wnt: Is it okay to criticize an editor for making "too many" edits that push the envelope of BLP policy? Cirt was asked in [[User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#BLP_violating_use_of_rollback|December]], [[User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#Stepping_away_from_Scientology_articles|January]], and [[Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug#Scientology_major|February]] to step away from the Scientology topic area, because of a consistent pattern of BLP violations. They took a long wikibreak, and coming back in May pretty much straight away started working on [[santorum (neologism)]] in a way that appeared to many editors to be, again, a BLP violation. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: Several of you have said that this is a content, not conduct, issue. I see this case as essentially similar to the recent [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Final_decision|Noleander case]]. There as here we had a civil editor who caused significant disruption by non-neutral writing, sourcing violations, and misrepresentation of sources. If this case is taken, I am convinced that I and others can provide [[User:Jayen466/Political_activism|evidence that there is a case to answer]]. Since making the above statement, Cirt has suggested several article improvement drives on various user talk pages. He has made over 200 edits in the last 24 hours. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Cirt]. He is available to Wikipedia. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 17:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

===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'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__[[User_talk:Becritical|Talk]]</sub> 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie. You say "I have strong feelings that the article in question is inherently problematic with our BLP policies." This is the position of a lot of people, including Jimbo. I tried to find justification for eliminating this information under Wikipedia rules... and I failed. I've considered each of the arguments presented on the talk page. If this ever gets accepted at Arbitration, what the Committee needs to decide is if there is any justification under Wikipedia rules which would disallow an article like the one in question. I believe interpretation of existing policy is within your remit? If you can't find such justification, then perhaps you will refer it back to the community to develop policy that applies to such cases. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__[[User_talk:Becritical|Talk]]</sub> 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

----

I have no previous involvement in these matters, and no affiliation to the POV-groups such as the "gay community."

One of the reasons this Arbitration would be premature is that we are in the process of attempting to form consensus to recast the article as about the ''campaign'' rather than about the word. While covering it as a word has many problems, covering it as a notable campaign is much more viable for WP. If this case is accepted, the arbitrators should consider whether there is any policy violation in covering the ''campaign,'' rather than the word.

Further, unless ArbCom is going to be open to taming the rampant, system-wide series of campaigns by individual editors to lend notability to their favorite subjects, the ArbCom should not consider punishment for Cirt or other such editors. Without these campaigns, whether for [[Manga]] characters or politics, the Encyclopedia would not exist. The only thing to be considered is whether the individual edits or articles adhere to NPOV... and even then, whether it's merely a matter of an editor's bias or whether the editor has taken steps to eliminate the opposing POV or opposing editors. So we need to be realistic here about how Wikipedia is built, and the fact that editors may edit with some bias without being disruptive. If the Committee does accept with an eye to curbing/punishing editor's conduct, are they willing to [[Categorical imperative|"act only on a maxim whereby they can will it should become a universal law"]]? That said, I don't know the background, I merely note some red flags in what people are saying. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__[[User_talk:Becritical|Talk]]</sub> 20:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by pretty much uninvolved Fetchcomms===
The only involvement I have had is editing [[Talk:Santorum (neologism)]] a few times (one or two?). I don't care for either Santorum or Savage, frankly.

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

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

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

<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

:@Casliber -Respectfully, the main thrust of the case is presentation of content, rather than content itself. We deal with a similar concern when we evaluate WP:DUE. My belief is that most people will be satisfied if they can reasonably believe Wikipedia is not being gamed or used by outside parties to hide information *or* to manipulate coverage. If we can address that, then the actual content will be able to work itself out without a problem. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:This idea that editor Cirt is somehow to blame for something seems a bit silly. I would say it is a red herring really, since the main point should be about whether people are gaming Wikipedia or Google, and working on how we present our material in order to prevent being gamed. As far as I can tell, tons of editors besides Cirt have worked on this article, and so we all share a responsibility for the outcome here. Laying blame on 1 editor seems a bit out of place and distracts from the real issue. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 04:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by 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.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

:@Wnt. I'm troubled by the idea that you think this issue is about "suppressing all negative comment about Republican candidates." The same goes for what you said to Kirill, "... if Wikipedia declares that political bias is going to be up for grabs for any organized group who can say that the facts are too nasty and we should just forget about good sources ..." This isn't about "negative comments" or "nasty facts." Indeed it is not about ''facts'' at all. [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]] is about "facts." An entry about the Google bombing campaign and its aftermath would be about "facts." The current entry purports to be about a neologism which isn't a neologism at all, it's a fake neologism, a wanna be neologism. By covering this topic ''in the manner we have been covering it'' we are not covering uncomfortable or controversial facts, we are playing into a political game. Many of us who are dismayed by this situation would be very happy with coverage of the the "facts" about Dan Savage's google bombing campaign. What I don't understand is how anyone purporting to defend Wikipedia against censorship as you seem to be can be against the efforts to rename the entry in a manner that accurately describes the notable "facts" but does not censor any of them. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

:@Wikidemon. [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. We are an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias (and other reference works) ''do not'' partake in the informational process you describe. They never have - not now, and not at the time of Ben Franklin. You are also arguing against a straw man, namely that those who oppose the current content want all reference to this matter removed from the encyclopedia entirely. That is not true at all. Most of us want coverage, in a manner fit for an encyclopedia, of the ''real'' and ''notable'' aspects of this issue. Let me ask you the same question I asked Wnt. Why should we have an article on a fake neologism that doesn't exist instead of an article on a successful googlebombing campaign that does indeed exist? It makes absolutely no sense at all to oppose the name changes that have been proposed unless one wishes to continue to participate in the googlebombing effort as opposed to reporting, as a respectable reference work would, on notable events. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

=== 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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 21:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

: I also wish to endorse Will Beback's statement below - he's said basically what I wanted to but didn't have the time to research out. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

:@reply to Tryptofish's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=434109797&oldid=434109186 update to his statement] - The issue here is not that a few users have come to subvert the process, the issue is the creator of the divisive disruptive content. Without user Cirt's contributions this community wide battlefield and partisan division would not exist at all. It is user Cirt's contributions here that are the issue not the communities response to them. Clearly if the community is divided reflective as per the population then if you write content that is NPOV down the middle according to what is requested of us you will get the kind of articles, templates and DYKs that are generally acceptable to both sides. one side looks and goes, well its a good NPOV representation of the situation and the other side does the same, this results in a working consensus community. User Cirts contributions do not do that, they are not NPOV and have such completely divided the community and disrupted it at multiple locations this is not because users wp:dontlikeit or because of users pov but because of the bias that was created in user Cirts contributions all of which was cited and developed by an experienced user, immediately dividing the community down partisan lines and creating a battlefield. - The fact that Cirt claims he then stepped back from the battlefield he had created is not a positive thing he can claim, "I removed myself from the divisive battlefield I created" - well thanks very much .and we are left with it to clean up and repair the division and the trust. User Cirt has a history of such content creation and if the repeat pattern is not restricted it will be repeated again you can be sure of that. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

=== Statement by Alanyst ===
The committee should pass a motion aimed at providing guidance for resolving this dispute. The motion should state:
# [[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. [[User talk:Alanyst|alanyst]] 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
===Statement by ResidentAnthropologist===
There are two elements from my perspective we need to address here:

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

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

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

'''@ARBCOM''' I 100% Agree that Arbcom should not rule on content disputes. The article is exists and is going through the normal community processes for content resolution.The issue here ''IS'' user conduct, specifically Cirt's editing obvious agenda based editing that has been permitted by the community for years. Though mostly concentrated on Church of Scientology (though it has extended to some other groups) was permitted by the community because no one likes CoS. The most severe bunch of the bloated Coatracks had to be eliminated by [[Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology]] task-force. Cirt's editing of Santorum/Savage area is the exact same pattern of behavior that Jayen466 and myself have been concerned about for years in the Scientology topic area. It appears that some individuals felt Cirt has too far when it is a republican instead of a Scientologist.

I have also disagreed very often with Cirt on topics in the [[WP:NRM|New and Alternative Religions]] topic area for years. Yet I have also defended Cirt when I think people have been unfair in interactions or exhibited hounding behavior.

@Wnt so far CoS affiliated accounts have a terrible track record at "infiltrating and subverting Wikipedia" as proven by [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug/Archive|ShutterBug's SPIs]]and [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS|COFS request for Check User]] and the entire [[WP:ARBSCI|Arbitration case]]. Are you suggesting that editors here are CoS affiliated who have successfully infiltrated and are in the process of subverting Wikipedia?

'''@Roger Davies and Arbcom,''' Your point about RFC/U is well made... ''BUT'' I fear the drama of an RFC/U will not resolve the issue and just end back here. Scrutiny of an Arbcom case may exonerate Cirt or may find troubling patterns in her editing. That being said I fear that letting scrutiny of Cirt be passed over again will only allow this issue to fester. Issues left to fester tend to cause more harm to the community in the long run. Cirt and several of her friends have made their own complaints of Hounding against Scott Macdonald, Delicious Carbuncle and Jayen466 in the past 7 months. The severity of accusations leveled here by Admins such as Slim Virgin and Scott Mcdonald against another Admin (Cirt) seems to make arbitration a necessity. Such issues are clearly within the scope of a full arbitration case.

=== 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 [http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=www.spreadingsantorum.com&hl=en&btnG=Search 278 links] to Savage's website for the 'word'. [http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSantorum_%28neologism%29&hl=en&btnG=Search 32 links] directly to [[Santorum (neologism)]]. [http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRick_Santorum&hl=en&btnG=Search 63 links] to [[Rick Santorum]]. [http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSantorum&hl=en&btnG=Search 3 links] to [[Santorum]]. There are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Sexual_slang&limit=100 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 [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Rick_Santorum Rick Santorum], [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Santorum_(neologism) Santorum (neologism)], [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Santorum Santorum], and [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Santorum_(disambiguation) 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. [[User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] ([[User talk:Flatterworld|talk]]) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Hope these numbers and links save you some time as you review the situation. [[User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] ([[User talk:Flatterworld|talk]]) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:In reply to Wnt's comments, I would suggest most people were unaware of this until Rick Santorum was in the news. That's generally when people start googling for someone's name, in an effort to learn more about that person. The results are usually relevant. When they aren't, people are surprised, and want to know why. That doesn't make it some conspiracy. [[User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] ([[User talk:Flatterworld|talk]]) 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

'''A version of what I posted earlier at the discussion on [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#Santorum (neologism)]]''', for those who still believe this is best described as a neologism rather than cyberbullying:<br>
Dan Savage is responsible for the [[It Gets Better Project]], aimed at gay kids who are bullied, including in cyberspace, by those who think they're wrong/different/whatever. That project got a lot of deserved support. Now Savage is bragging about the success of his efforts to [[cyber-bully]] Rick Santorum because he's wrong/different/whatever. Hello? '''Bullying is wrong.''' Period. If you don't agree with Santorum's views, and many (I would hope most) of us do not, surely there is a better, more rational, more adult, more respectful way to point out that he's wrong. At Wikipedia we're expected to Assume Good Faith and not resort to nasty attacks. So why should we be party to an activity seeking to glorify the opposite through cheap and sleazy SEO tricks? The category the article belongs to is <nowiki>[[Category:Cyber-bullying]]</nowiki>, and the article name should reflect that. I would also suggest the article do a 'compare and contrast' of the two Savage projects.<br>
I suggest reading [http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2301822 Dan Savage's 24 September 2009 column, third section]. It's not (yet) referenced in the [[Santorum (neologism)]] article, but imo it certainly makes a compelling case for showing Savage's determination to continue and increase the cyber-bullying in connection with the 2012 campaign. And back in '''2009'''! (I just found the article through googling - I was trying to find Savage's [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/dan_savage.html more recent statement]: "When we told him about the nascent campaign to fix Santorum's search results, Savage said, 'We'll just have to redouble our Google bombing efforts.'") Following is a clip, bolding mine:<blockquote>So I'm looking for a few folks who want to '''torment Rick Santorum by following every twist and turn of his sure-to-be-disastrous run for the White House''' on SpreadingSantorum.com. (I may dip in every once in a while and post myself.) It would be labor of love—read: a nonpaying gig—but you'll have '''the satisfaction of knowing that you're driving Rick Santorum and his supporters absolutely batshit (batshittier?).'''</blockquote>[[User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] ([[User talk:Flatterworld|talk]]) 04:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


===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,[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Scientology] Rajneesh/Osho,[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)] Twelve Tribes communities,[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Twelve_Tribes_communities], est,[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System] 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. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 02:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

:Regarding SEO issues: One of the complaints here concerns the addition of inbound links to articles. When I started on Wikipedia there was a big emphasis on "building the web" of internal links. I note that some of the editors who've posted here have advocated doing the same thing, such as adding links to all possible date articles,[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27947&pid=212222&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#] in order to get the articles to appear on the main page.[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27947&pid=211875&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#](warning- off-WP links) The same editor has even "edit warred" to keep such links.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_17&diff=334052055&oldid=334023026][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_17&diff=334072400&oldid=334054604] Another editor complaining here has created articles and then added them to templates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=INFORM&action=history][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cults&diff=332712297&oldid=331912528][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circle_jerk_(sexual_practice)&action=history][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASex&action=historysubmit&diff=414984359&oldid=411805186] Creating articles and adding links to them is standard operating procedure. If the ArbCom is going to write a policy that defines the difference between adding enough links and adding too many then it will have a tough job, one better left to the community. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

:Regarding Savage's sexual neologisms: Savage is a sex advise columnist. He specializes in addressing issues that are beyond traditional topics of discussion, and which may therefore lack common words to describe them. Among his other neologisms is [[Pegging (sexual practice)]], created in 2001 at least two years before he coined "santorum". We have a long, uncontroversial article about "pegging", and it is linked in templates, etc. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Looie496 ===

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

=== 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, starting just a few days after Rick Santorum's unofficial announcement<sup>[[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/26/santorum-to-announce-candidacy-first-monday-in-june/]]</sup> of his candidacy for the American presidency. <strike>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.</strike> (Sorry, withdrawn per source above)

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? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 04:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Kirill: I agree that Wikipedia is "at risk of being abused for advocacy". But by making a strong community decision to ''include'' discussion of all reliable sources about well known politicians, we limit people to what the sources actually say. By contrast, if we allow the deletion of things people don't like, there is no bound to the distortion and whitewashing that can happen, as different groups of people try to blot things out. When I look at the [[Anthony Weiner sexting scandal]], the debate for suppression there involves an almost nonoverlapping cast of characters. (Sure, Cirt was there, voting to Keep like a true inclusionist. Collect was there, surprisingly enough, also voting to Keep.) Now if Wikipedia declares that political bias is going to be up for grabs for any organized group who can say that the facts are too nasty and we should just forget about good sources, we're going to have a ''very'' ugly time indeed in 2012. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466: I believe it is ''entirely'' wrong to criticize an editor for making "too many" edits, when those edits individually are appropriate. People should ''never'' lose rights because they registered for an account rather than contributing as a variable IP address. The decision of which articles to work on and what sources to look up and summarize is one of the few legitimate ways Wikipedians have to express their bias, and it underlies nearly every edit made to the encyclopedia. Scientists create articles about their favorite species and tools and concepts; nationalists write articles about their state parks and famous forefathers. And political supporters write the truth - when we're lucky - about their candidates and opponents. If you had no bias about a topic at all, you would never think to write about it. The role of Wikipedia administration should be simply to ensure that those contributions are in fact verifiable and accurately reflect the source, and to encourage people to look for and correct imbalances by adding material other editors have missed. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:Your links mostly show that Cirt was harassed from Wikipedia Review, and foolishly tried to compromise by giving ground, only leading to more harassment. Sometimes it looks like the primary purpose of BLP is to protect Scientology, a group devoid of truth or principle which is more than capable of infiltrating and subverting Wikipedia. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: In the straw poll on Talk:Santorum, nearly every Support vote mentioning Google considered the effect of having the article name and content on the Google results, while nearly every Oppose vote mentioning it was either unconcerned or skeptical that it had an effect. Jimbo Wales weighed in that we should rephrase the lead sentence so that the part Google quoted would make it clear it was a political attack by Dan Savage. Furthermore, I suspect the page's high rank comes because many respected news sources have linked to the page directly [http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSantorum_%28neologism%29&hl=en&btnG=Search]. There was actually some discussion early on, though I'm not sure who was behind the idea, of completely ''breaking'' the old redirect into the article, which would have invalidated those links - thereby actually causing a great reduction in the Google ranking. So who is using SEO? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Whatever city you live in, there's probably a free newspaper distributed at college campuses and businesses listing band performances and other social events. Odds are,<sup>[http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/11/salt_lake_weekl.php]</sup> Dan Savage has a column in it. And had a column in it since the 90s. Now Dan Savage is never going to be running in Reader's Digest or even your local "newspaper of record", so what does he ''possibly'' have to gain from a lousy DYK that gets 5000 page impressions? The idea that Cirt did this for Savage's benefit is just absurd. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 04:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: If someone had said to me in 2004, "there's a lot of santorum coming through the filter on the <small>[laboratory gel drier]</small> vacuum pump", I would have known exactly what he meant - a brown, oily, frothy, disgusting substance. <small>(Actually, I think I ''used'' it at the time, but I can't swear I was understood)</small> Anyone who followed political news or read the free papers would. That makes it a genuine neologism in my mind. The genius of Savage's campaign is not merely that he targeted a deserving Senator, but applied the neologism to something that was (a) extremely memorable and (b) didn't have another name. By comparison a neologism I was also well aware of about [[J. James Exon]] (see e.g. [http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=motherexoning&btnG=Search]) died out unfortunately very quickly, because we already have a serviceable word. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Flatterworld: Wikipedia's job ''should'' be to report the facts without passing judgment. But it is grossly unfair to describe Dan Savage as simply a "cyberbully". Rick Santorum came out in response to the final invalidation of what had been a totalitarian legal prohibition on homosexuality, taking the opportunity to belittle the hope of gays to marry. Now imagine the keelhaulage Santorum would have suffered if he'd said that we should think twice about abolishing slavery, or said that ''Jews'' shouldn't be permitted to marry! Savage's campaign is just a mild and divinely inspired sort of poetic justice, converting bitterness into belly laughs. There is no jail time for politicians proposing stupid ideas, but the revenge on Santorum for telling Dan Savage and millions like him they can't marry the loves of their lives is that just maybe, Santorum will never be hitched to the political office that is the love of ''his'' life. Savage is no villain, and we shouldn't even think of saying it's wrong for people to cover the words and ideas he has created. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 06:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

:@Ched Davis: You say that "two wrongs don't make a right". But I doubt you're suggesting we limit our coverage of Santorum's campaign in order to suppress his ideas. So why would you suggest we reduce coverage of Savage's activist response to suppress his ideas? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Richard of Earth: You say there could be embarrassment for Santorum's children, but have any committed suicide? Now ask yourself how many gay kids in the U.S. continue to die that way. That's the difference between a trumped-up Wikipedia issue and the real political issue to which we must defer. Our sympathies should be with ''general public'' which deserves access to uncensored political coverage. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@DHeyward: It is true that extra references are sometimes added to controversial articles, due to the incessant push to cut out "non-notable" content. But it is not reasonable to decry the bias of people who add information they know about, while pretending that those seeking to cut, fold, spindle and mutilate Wikipedia's coverage of political issues according to personal opinions of propriety are doing so in a purely fair and balanced way. And if Wikipedia had a left-wing bias, why are we here fighting to maintain coverage of a well-known topic? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Tony1===
Disclaimer: I've done a bit of work on-wiki with Cirt, and I've formed the view that he's a valuable member of the community and contributes in good faith. Please discount my comments if you believe this represents significant CoI.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 06:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Sandstein===
I note with dismay that my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification&oldid=433881009#No.2C_retain_the_old_policy 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Prior question by FT2 ===
<s>'''@Coren''' - the original case statement describes "RFCs" (plural) as well as templates, and assertions of edit wars and other improper conduct. There is little evidence given of current disorderly behavior and the presented evidence tends to show significant reasonable discussion rather than failed dispute resolution. Can we have a summary and links to the key case history rather than allusions to it, then it will be possible to comment in an informed manner. Thanks. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 13:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)</s>

Unresponded, hence superseded by statement. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 15:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

=== Statement by Khazar ===
I can't speak to Cirt's actions more broadly, but I'm troubled by those who appear to suggest that including coverage of the neologism campaign at all is bad-faith soapboxing, and a subject for ArbCom in itself. Savage's "santorum" crusade has been discussed as a major issue for RS's presidential campaign in ABC News,[http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/rick-santorums-google-problem-resurfaces-with-jon-stewart-plug.html], Mother Jones[http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage], Rachel Maddow,[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/28/rachel-maddow-rick-santorum-google-problem_n_868430.html] The Concord Monitor [http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/262299/rick-santorum-vs-the-internet?CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId|CSGroupId%3Aapproved%3ABA4A9537C4BF4594E11F4B09D8217743&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1], CNN [http://www.bilerico.com/2011/02/video_cnns_coverage_of_santorums_google_problem.php], Slate.com [http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/16/rick-santorum-s-long-and-lonely-battle-for-respect.aspx] [http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/06/13/front-pages-you-don-t-want-to-see.aspx], The Washington Post [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/rick-santorum-gets-google-boost-from-jon-stewart/2011/05/10/AFmQPbgG_blog.html], The Village Voice [http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/santorum_savage_google.php], the Capitol Hill paper Roll Call [http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html], the conservative National Review [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268839/bono-has-better-taste-miley-kathryn-jean-lopez], New York Magazine [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/does_rick_santorum_really_have.html], The National Journal [http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/gop-debate-preview-hey-we-39-re-not-so-bad-20110613], and CBS News [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/06/opinion/main20069538.shtml]. It's also been extensively referenced in the monologues of television hosts, the popular US humor programs The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and dozens of blogs. It's clear that [[Pandora's box|the genie is out of the bottle]], with or without Wikipedia. I think there's room to reasonably disagree about how this content should be titled, framed, and balanced, as with any article. But I'm alarmed at the repeated suggestions that ArbCom should preempt or overrule an RfC to erase this content outright, or disguise the increasingly famous fact that Dan Savage coined a nasty neologism that's hindering a well-known ex-senator's presidential ambitions. Suppressing some or all coverage of a political candidate's widely-reported problems--no matter how sympathetic we may be to those problems--seems like a precedent that will cause problems in many future articles. I think a better model is to do as we've always done, with controversies like [[Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]] and the [[Bill Ayers presidential election controversy]] and political neologisms like [[Bush Derangement Syndrome]] or [[macacawitz]]--report the smears, report the responses, and report the reliable sources that cover both. (I'm on board for a name change, though. It's a shame SlimVirgin bundled her very sensible name change proposal with the request to cap all neologism coverage at "a paragraph or two", or I think this issue would already be heading for consensus.) -- [[User:Khazar|Khazar]] ([[User talk:Khazar|talk]]) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Doc James===
Seriously? Looks like some are making a mountain out of a molehill. Is what is written verifiable? Are the sources reliable? Is it NPOV? If not we have places to address that. If it is than move on. We do not need policies to "protect" people who say what they shouldn't have. Does not look like ARBCOM material and why propagate the [[Streisand effect]]. --[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 18:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by involved editor [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) ===

I doubt this case is ripe for Arbcom just yet, but I also suspect that community processes are unlikely to resolve the underlying issue. I find Coren's claim that Wikipedia is being misused by Dan Savage to be rich. At the very least the nascent crush of interest in the article corresponds not with Dan Savage (who came up w/ the idea '''years''' ago) but with Rick Santorum's presidential campaign finding itself in the unenviable position of being ranked below a cruel joke played at the candidate's expense. Even excluding all of this skullduggery, there have been ''multiple'' attempts (both within and without process) to censor the article or rename it to something ludicrous--all under the banner of BLP. Well let me tell you (with apologies to the expectation of courtly language), the buck fucking stops with you. If we are to use BLP to cover up this article or bend it to the will of some 3rd string candidate we can just shutter the place right now as we are no longer an encyclopedia. Either we allow sourced and vigorously edited content within the confines of our policy or we give it up. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thenub314 ===
(Disclaimers: I have !voted in the current RfC to keep the name and title as is. Also, I have recently tried to convince Cirt to returning to editing DYK's). I find this request as a serious failure to assume good faith. I have taken no part in editing templates, and an extremely minor role in the whole issue. Specifically allegations that Cirt (and his supporters?) ''sole'' purpose for creating templates was political activism seems to be assuming a lot about their motivations then could possibly be known. I consider my self a moderately active wikipedian, but I notice that Cirt's edit count in the template namespace outnumbers my edit count across all name spaces. He also seems to create a number of new templates. Even templates about bacon! Frankly I don't personally see how it could be possible to have a template a long standing LGBT slang, but call a template for more general sexual slang as part of a political agenda? Choose to have one or choose to have neither, but what ever they are they are of the same ilk.

There is a pattern in this I find very disconcerting. Several days ago SlimVirgin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&diff=432808405&oldid=432807685 left a comment], (which came across as threatening to me) that Cirt should desist his editing activities or he would face problems in Arbcom. He ceased and desisted, to the point that he stopped editing almost entirely. Now I understand his family issues are part of his absence, but I am sure he no longer feels welcome to edit. Now he is named in this case after have been out of the fray for several days.

I would like to suggest that perhaps people's strong emotions have skewed Coren's reaction, as well as almost everyone else's. There is no particular reason to view political activism in this Cirt's behavior over this content dispute. We all (hopefully) edit within the confines of what we are knowledgeable about. For Cirt this seems to involve Dan Savage, religion and perhaps bacon. My knowledge is even more narrowly focused to doctor who and a fairly distinct, narrow subfield of mathematics. He is no more guilty then I of pushing a political agenda. And I hope the committee sees fit to not single him out on this particular matter.

Finally I would like to point out, as this issue is raised by a fellow Arbitrator. Even though she/he (sorry I don't know which) recused, the rest of the committee I am sure is used to working with Coren closely. I assume the committee is used to placing a very high value on Coren's opinions, and this makes it almost impossible for any sort of impartial judgment about editors Coren is in conflict with. Nonetheless there is no higher court, so there is not much to be done about the situation, accept to acknowledge it specifically, and reflect upon that fact before final judgments are made. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Reo On ===
Preamble: I had no prior involvement with the article/topic before RfC, in fact being from Czech Republic, I am personally quite oblivious to the partisan positions here. I had been drawn to the issue by the SlimVirgin's RfC and saw it important and difficult matter to deal with, so I am among those who have been discussing the way out.

I would like to discriminate two sub-issues related to the difficult debate about [[Santorum_(neologism)]].

Firstly the one most heavily discussed part is the actual content dispute. I fully agree with the many above me that this part is premature for the ArbCom to step in; RfC is just running, discussion bellow voting shows signs of coming to a compromise. I saw through the last few days new fruitful approaches to address the disagreement; pattern is emerging to overcome the previously strong partisanship. I see the potential for consensus (<small>how to deal with all the alleged/real policy-violations and applications of Wps:[[WP:BLP|BLP]]|[[WP:BLP1E|BLP1E]]|[[WP:NEO|NEO]]|[[WP:TITLE|TITLE]]|[[WP:DUE|DUE]]X[[WP:CENSOR|CENSOR]]|[[WP:N|N]]|[[WP:WELLKNOWN|WELLKNOWN]]...BLP1E renaming to avoid NEO and BLP?</small>). I have full faith in the community to deal with it in the spirit of the Wikipedia policies and well so.

;SEO techniques inside Wikipedia
Nevertheless I think there is a issue worthy of ArbCom's consideration; I would like to ask ArbCom as whether Wikipedia policies could be potentially misused/circumvent to SEO. I believe this case might be novel, so what I am asking the ArbCom to do, is not content related or Conduct related request, but rather policy interpretation/formulation of general principles about new policy.

I just from the start assume for argument that Cirt or any other involved party worked just in good faith so far. As much as I know the rules, the contributor's willingness to write neutrally the content is considered per each page contribution separately: whether the statements are true and due.

Thinking through this issue I see emerging loophole allowing experienced user to overcome all the restrictions provided by the policies; If he is motivated and skilled enough, he might be capable to sway his way through, and use Wikipedia for the political or any other agenda (At least myself, from now on, I could imagine, how to do it myself) through SEO on chosen term in chosen context.

Too many links to <nowiki>'</nowiki>'''''promoted term'''''<nowiki>'</nowiki> in templates and other pages, while relevant in narrow sense (just barelly relevant template), may inadvertently (or intentionally) cause SEO-like effects. It is ironical and poisonous in cases where the word is [[WP:NOTE|WP:notable]] just for being SEO pushed in 'real world'. ''(examples by others)''

We can't force some Global DUE policy. What prescription might force individual Wikipedists to spread attention to all potential search terms equally and Glob'DUE' link them inside Wikipedia? With any policy being missing here, however, now even I realized I could devise such an editing pattern, which can intentionally '''manipulate''' more heavily the reality then just '''describing it''', -and still all in compliance with Wikipedia conduct standards. Looking from outside, I might either assume (in AFG), that the contributors may be working just diligently on area within they interest (they can) or to think they are intentionally working hard on manipulating search engines, either way, we have no position how to deal with such conduct. And before their/his contributions might be attributed to the bad faith editing, there should be some policy, precedent to point on, to guide each of them if they may act in [[Wp:AGF|GF]]. ''(We cant be [[Ex post facto law|retroactive]] right?)''

How do we distinguish between promoting a term and promoting the article? ''(Macwhiz)'' Couldn't there be some addendum to the NEO regarding its usage in templates?

;Policy (?)
I would propose terms notable to be 'GoogleBomb' should be dealt separately in new paragraph of [[WP:NEO]]. 'Promoted term' should be excluded from the normal practice of being put in many circulating templates. If Wikipedia needs to write about important GoogleBombs, we still should be mindful, to ensure that Wikipedia does not participate in the purported SEO effect, BLP being just one of two justification.

[[wp:BLP1E]] is intended to protect people involved, it should be also valid equally with personal proprieties involved like the said surname (word or subjects generally) being notable for one event ''[[User:Reo On|'''R'''<font color="lightseagreen">e</font>o]]'' '''[[User talk:Reo On|<sup>+</sup>]]''' 07:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

: '''@ Risker''' There seems to be few new accounts and some few of them might have some previous experience with Wikipedia, but (IMHO) they are far from prevailing in the discussion. More pressing is, the situation as already is creates quite SEO effect (no need for amateur single accounts for mass canvassing). But as long as all rules seem to be uphold (notability, neutrality, due), so many many contributors will just defend the articles in earnest - just for upholding the rules (and if I am right, then in part - in case of the article - even rightly so, because instead of deletion, reshaping the article to the event, retitling and delinking seems be the best practice to me).--''[[User:Reo On|'''R'''<font color="lightseagreen">e</font>o]]'' '''[[User talk:Reo On|<sup>+</sup>]]''' 07:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

:@Wikidemon - We surelly do not need to resign to ''report on things that got spread through search engine optimization'' as long as they are notable. You are right in many parts. The other part is just to report on it, or to contribute to it. I believe, we can discriminate between those to, if choosing wording and titling carefully and most importantly, we may seek to find consensus, that in some cases it would be benefitial to restrict common and normal practice - to inbed links to such articles from navigation templetes. It is not the existence of the article which is causing the harm. It the article being heavilly linked from 'Santorum_(neologism)' links in many templates, that creates huge correlation for the search engines. This is not covered by policy so far. But I think, it should. --''[[User:Reo On|'''R'''<font color="lightseagreen">e</font>o]]'' '''[[User talk:Reo On|<sup>+</sup>]]''' 10:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Wikidemon ===
The losing side of this particular argument not only refuses to quit, but also to accept that those on the other side are acting in good faith. They speculate that those who resolutely defend the existence of an article about an epithet protesting a politician's anti-gay slurs do so in concert with off-wiki activists in a deliberate attempt to besmirch the politician's reputation.

The complaint echoes the old conservative saw that talking about gay issues in public forces political activism down people's throats. If you talk about gays as if it were a legitimate issue, you must be some kind of agitator. Those launching the complaint here are seasoned and well respected editors, and Wikipedia is a liberal place, so I won't accuse them of anti-gay bias anymore than they should be accusing those who favor keeping the article of pursuing a [[gay agenda]]. But I do hold up a mirror. Accusing people of biased editing - or worse, of agenda-driven editing - because you think their position hurts one political camp is polarizing and bad for the editing environment. It will be more so if ArbCom wades in and takes a side.

A first principle in editing political articles is this: focus on content, not editors. If you disagree lay out the sources, the content policies, and your opinion about them, participate in a civil discussion, and see who has the better argument. Accept the will of the community following well-worn rules to come to an informed decision on how to cover a given subject.

By contrast, "Wikipedia is a liberal whitewash", "this article is an embarrassing joke", "the bias confirms what everyone knows about Wikipedia", and "you must be a campaign volunteer" (to paraphrase) are the battleground arguments that ruin some of our hot political topics. If ArbCom says anything here, it should be that those accusations have no place in the community and that people should stick to basic editing rules like verifiability, sourcing facts, and writing good articles.

As I see it the case rests on two claims:

* The content of the article so obviously wrong that no editor sincerely applying the rules could support it. Hence, those who approve of the article must have ulterior motives.
* The article is about a political cause promoted by activists through deliberate use of Internet optimization techniques. Even if Wikipedia editors are not intentionally conspiring with the off-wiki activists, by covering them in the encyclopedia they are unwittingly doing their bidding.

The first is simple refusal to accept consensus outcome. As a content matter, the neologism that is the subject of the article either is notable or it is not. Factors that may or may not relate to notability include whether the term has taken on a secondary meaning beyond the initial campaign, and whether it has escaped from the lab as it were, and entered common usage. I see personal opinion on both sides and think some people just have strong opinions: some of us hear the term regularly in common speech, others haven't heard it before this debate. The world is still a heterogeneous place. At the end of the day we look to the sources and hash it out. Content decisions fall on the rules and sources. After hearing all we may make the right decision, we may make the wrong decision, but it's our decision. That's how it works, and ArbCom is not the decider.

The second argument is fallacy. Most everything in the public consciousness got there because someone promoted it there using the tools of the day, or else it became viral, or was a news story. That's true from Ben Franklin's sayings (he used to write fake anonymous letters to his newspaper, so he could answer them - an old time sockpuppet) to Lady Gaga's latest song and Sarah Palin's train tour. The cycle goes something like this: (1) operative publicizes something; (2) it enters the public realm; (3) <s>newspapers</s><u>sources</u> report on it; and (4) eventually, Wikipedia writes an article. Public awareness is the fruit of hard work whether volunteer, paid, self-promoting, or political activism - and having a Wikipedia article is one of the fruits of public awareness. That's not a feedback loop, that's Wikipedia reflecting the state of the sources. If we refused to report on things that got spread through search engine optimization for fear of rewarding SEO efforts, we wouldn't write any new articles.

:@Griswaldo - NOTNEWS is a separate issue and I don't think anyone is arguing that here. Use "book" instead of "newspaper" if you wish. The point is that many ideas become prominent through deliberate promotion. We're not here to judge whether it's fair that something is notable, only whether it is nor not. Why would I care if I'm not out to googlebomb? American gays versus the Republican Right is not my issue, but I do take an editorial interest in articles about mass culture and the manipulation of public perceptions. You could say I wrote the article on [[Media prank]]s, a close cousin of googlebombing. I also take note sometimes when Wikipedia editors pile on and direct as much rhetoric as they have here in opposition to Wikipedia's covering a particular topic. Something is obviously getting under someone's skin here. On balance I believe from what I read that this particular term has transcended the efforts to create it and has taken on a life of its own. It's simple editorial judgment that the term is an encyclopedic subject, although I'm sympathetic to the argument that the article should be retitled and refocused to talk more about the social phenomenon than its emergence as a new term that stands for something. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Nomoskedasticity===
I see several references below to "failure to reach resolution" and the like. I find these statements mystifying. Various people have made proposals for changes; most of them have failed to gain consensus. How is this evidence of failure of normal processes here? Some people would no doubt like to paint "failure to reach the 'right' answer" as failure of process -- does Arbcomm really want to adopt that perspective?

I could understand Arbcomm addressing the narrow issue of SEO techniques (with attention to Cirt's behavior). But even here it can't be said that normal community processes have somehow failed -- they haven't even been tried yet (w/rt templates, etc.). [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 11:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by involved John Vandenberg===
I think the committee should decline this case at this time. There are ongoing content RFCs, and there are no relevant user conduct RFCs.

I doubt that the committee can fix the SEO aspect sooner or better than the community, and concerns about Cirt's actions will boil down to the motive behind the creation of this mess, and the committee is extremely unlikely to make a determination about motive.

At the heart of this problem is the broad acceptance of [[WP:NOTDONE]] and its effects—that our content grows organically based on the (usually harmless) motivations of Wikipedia editors, and that, at any one time, the result is a malformed encyclopedia with large clumps of great articles about (almost) useless topics while critical topics are brief or rubbish. ([[WP:POKEMON]] was a well known and even self-deprecating example of this; [[WP:BACON]] is becoming another example; both are deemed to be harmless at worst) [[WP:AGF]] says we dont care what the motivations are, provided the resulting content is a net positive. There is an incredibly fine line between encouraging contributors to write about whatever interests them, in excruciating detail, and accepting an intentional over-exposure of a topic, in turn causing or contributing to (we think) a Google Bomb effect, which in turn is contributing to a nasty problem that a living politician has. This isn't the first time it has been done on Wikipedia, but it is the most obvious, high profile, and clearly distasteful. The current discussions have shown that there are a lot of people who think the current situation is unsatisfactory and counter-productive to the objectives of Wikipedia, and inroads are being made. The community has agreed that the template "Political_neologisms" was bullocks and it has been deleted; misrepresentation of sources has been highlighted causing some people to see the article in a different light; etc. The community is wrapping their head around this, with numerous ongoing RFCs. Letting these RFCs run their course will mean that, if this needs to come back to arbitration, the committee can see who was putting up roadblocks.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by LadyofShalott===
It seems to me that editors create articles on topics that have intrigued them in some way or other. Cirt tends to produce a number of articles on topics related to one another that have caught his attention in some reason or another, whether it be bacon or Dan Savage. This really is no different from any other writer who writes a series of article on plants, or Pokemon, or Palin. The issue of how the term 'santorum' and the campaign to promote its use is handled in Wikipedia is a content question, and is being handled as such elsewhere. There is no misconduct here. I don't see any need for arbitration. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:LadyofShalott|<font color="#ee3399">Lady</font>]]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>[[User_Talk:LadyofShalott|<font color="#442288">Shalott</font>]]</font> 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Question by Prioryman===

What exactly is the Arbitration Committee being asked to arbitrate here? I gather that this issue is the subject of ongoing RfCs. Is the intention of the petitioner(s) that the Arbcom should terminate or overrule the RfCs and impose a solution? If so, that looks very much like asking the Arbcom to adjudicate a content question, which as far as I was aware is outside its remit. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by SlimVirgin===
;Request to accept the case
I ask the Committee to accept this case to examine the Santorum situation within the broader context of Cirt's editing. There has been concern for some time that Cirt's edits serve to promote outside commercial or political interests. I make no comment about motive, and indeed it's important to assume good faith. It's highly likely that Cirt simply becomes intensely interested in an issue, and pursues it for weeks to the exclusion of all else, without thinking about the appearance or consequences. It is nevertheless true that the effect of this is that Wikipedia is furthering outside interests, in a way that may not be in Wikipedia's interests; that the editing involves arguable BLP violations; and that the situation is causing disruption and bad feeling within the community.

;Santorum/Savage edits
Regarding the santorum issue, Senator [[Rick Santorum]] announced in April that he had formed a presidential exploratory committee. [http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-14/news/29449171_1_gop-nomination-important-fund-raising-tool-committee] On May 5, he took part in the first of the [[Republican_presidential_primaries,_2012#Debates|Republican presidential debates]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/gop-contenders-look-seize-moment-presidential-debate/]

There is a recent [http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/santorum-hopes-google-will-do-something-about-filth-on-the-internet/ video here] of Santorum discussing the Google problem he has because of efforts to turn his surname into a neologism related to anal sex.

Cirt was on wikibreak from the English Wikipedia March 5–May 7 (though editing elsewhere). On May 9 he began a series of hundreds of edits that expanded [[Santorum (neologism)]] from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santorum_%28neologism%29&oldid=428299847 1591 words with 33 footnotes] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santorum_%28neologism%29&oldid=431393981 5,278 words with 128 footnotes]. He made 296 edits to the article between May 9 and June 4. He created three new templates to which he added the article, then added those templates to over 200 other articles. Several editors argued that the expansion and spread of the article amounted to a BLP violation. Cirt went on to create or expand several articles about [[Dan Savage]], the freelance writer who coined the definition of santorum, on Wikipedia and Wikinews. He created seven DYKs about Savage, two of which were posted on the main page on June 5, with a third at the top of the queue. I had intended to post a fuller description of these efforts, but the Committee is voting so quickly that I have no time to do that.

;Other issues
The santorum situation is not the first time Cirt has caused similar concern. He has created several articles in the past that have appeared to be promotional, politically or commercially. Jayen posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=431199471#Advocacy_concerns these concerns] to Cirt's talk page on May 26 about five issues: (1) [[Kenneth Dickson]] and [[Joel Anderson]] (a political issue); (2) [[Jose Peralta]] and [[Hiram Monserrate]] (a political issue); (3) [[Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant]] (a commercial issue); (4) [[Corbin Fisher]] (a commercial issue); and (5) [[Santorum (neologism)]] (a political and commercial issue, because of the promotion of both the term and Dan Savage).

;My first attempt at dispute resolution
Jayen concerns were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive700#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt discussed on AN/I] on May 26–27, presented as Cirt being hounded. During that I asked Jayen not to file an RfC on Cirt at that time (as he proposed to), and in exchange I asked Cirt to take on board the criticisms and concerns. I wrote on May 27: " ... I hope Cirt will take on board any criticism, including the perception that he edits a little too much to further what might be personal interests. We all do this (no one wants to write about things that bore them), but it's important not to let it cross into open advocacy." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431253148] I hoped this would be enough to end the dispute. Cirt replied on the same day: "Thank you, SlimVirgin, for the wise words. I will take your advice and try to make efforts to avoid editing in the manner you describe." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=431257046]

;My second attempt at dispute resolution
On June 4, I [[Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content|posted an article RfC]] that proposes renaming, radically tightening, and merging [[Santorum (neologism)]] into [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality]].

;My third attempt at dispute resolution
I found out two days later that, '''even as the May 26-27 AN/I discussion was taking place''', Cirt had continued preparing DYKs about Dan Savage, seven in all—for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=431203416 May 27] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=431456433 May 29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=431600655 May 30] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=431959958 June 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=432641831 June 5]—two of which were posted on the main page on June 5, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACirt&action=historysubmit&diff=432600612&oldid=432587189] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACirt&action=historysubmit&diff=432645647&oldid=432620767] with another at the top of the queue.

I engaged in another attempt at dispute resolution with Cirt about this on June 6 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt&oldid=434252771#A_concern on his talk page here]. The remaining DYKs were removed only after I objected to them; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=434292636#Removed_some_of_my_self_noms see the DYK talk-page discussion here]. This kind of exposure is of significant commercial value to a freelance writer, and the exposure of Savage had the knock-on effect of further spreading the "santorum" neologism, which was linked to or discussed in all the Savage articles.

;My fourth attempt at dispute resolution
I began a parallel attempt at dispute resolution on June 6 by e-mail. I asked Cirt to choose a member of the ArbCom or senior functionary that he trusted to act as a third party in the correspondence. He chose Shell Kinney. Shell was on wikibreak from May 31 to June 12, and did not respond to the emails. Then Coren filed this RfAr on June 12, so I regarded the email correspondence as over before it began.

However, on June 12, Shell began corresponding with us, and on the same day she declined to accept the RfAr. The attempt at dispute resolution failed, so all I want to say about it is that in my view Shell involved herself in the situation on Cirt's side, not as a neutral party, and ought to recuse from the case. I have requested her recusal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shell_Kinney&diff=prev&oldid=434285575 here], and have asked for guidance about this from the ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=434286085 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&diff=prev&oldid=434287733 here].

;Conclusion
The situation has gone past the point where a user RfC will help, in my view. I believe Cirt will adjust his behavior in response to community concerns only to the absolute minimum necessary to allay those concerns, then will continue as before. Because he edits a great deal, keeping track of his edits, fixing them, compiling diffs, and engaging in dispute resolution is extremely time-consuming, and it isn't fair to expect members of the community to continue to do this.

In closing, I want to add that I have no personal interest in Rick Santorum or Dan Savage, and knew nothing about them until this situation emerged. I also strongly oppose the comments Santorum made that led to the coining of the neologism. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 19:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by almost entirely uninvolved Hobit ===
The only problem here is a content dispute. Heck, there is only one real party to the dispute at the moment. This isn't ArbCom's to decide. If ArbCom does start getting involved in content disputes because they are "intractable", we'll just get more and more intractable problems as the losers keep holding out in the hopes that ArbCom will jump in on their side. Please don't make that mistake. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
*I'll point out that the RfC has been closed. It does seem the community has actually handled the matter. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by lightly involved Georgewilliamherbert ===
I do not believe that this is ripe for an Arbcom case.

Re Cirt, though there are a number of concerned community members, a user conduct RFC hasn't been started and would be the appropriate next step. The concerned users are articulating a case for potential misbehavior but have not yet met a reasonable burden of proof; a RFC could help solidify that. Even if there is bias, non-neutral POV effects need to be demonstrated. There seemed to be significant effort to balance the article IMHO.

Re the content issue, RFCs are active and the community is doing what the community does. The issues related to BLP and impact in the real world are more than adequately presented and defended in those RFCs. The community is not deadlocked or unable to constructively debate the issues.

I think everyone understands why this is a hot button issue; this is (now) a presidential candidate, and a particularly offensive political campaign against him by a journalist. Wikipedia needs to be wary and careful here.

That said, Arbcom should not seek to short-circuit the RFCs. The community is doing its job properly. If it fails (not just concludes one way or the other, but fails to come to consensus taking the factors under consideration into account) then it would be ripe for a rapid case. But not before. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 20:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement Littleolive oil===

RfC'S are being suggested as the grace that will potentially save or define this issue. Presently the RfC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content] has over a 120 voting editors, and while the oppose votes are somewhat in the majority, the support votes are within 20 votes. I'd suggest that there is no way to determine consensus in this kind of situation. Perhaps Wikjpedia has grown too large to expect RfCs or mediations to be venues for determining outcomes for highly-visible, high-traffic, and serious content issues which may include editor behaviour, and BLP issues. How can one or two closing admin determine what is best when his decision may be opposed by 60 editors. Consensus can't be based on just a count at any time, but when 60 or so people are seeing problems on both side of an issue, nothing is clear or simple and certainly not simple enough to rely on a count or the opinions of a couple of admins. The community can't be fairly represented in this kind of "draw" situation. From what I understand the committee has it with in its remit to deal with content issues if it sees the need to. RfCs and mediations just can't handle the unwieldy weight of the input of this many editors who are so evenly split. And this is only superficially a content issue since BLP, a serious issue for Wikipedia, is in the mix, and how BLP has been transgressed may be a behavioural issue. I expect that the time is coming when Wikipedia will have to establish a form of DR that can deal with the input of so many editors. Until that happens, ARBCOM is the only place to go.

===Statement by Gacurr===

The matter to be resolved is summarized by chronology.

* Coren removed a sexual slang word from a sexual slang template: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=prev&oldid=433736577] "''This is an egregious BLP violation. See talk.''"

* Talk page discussion at the time indicated inclusion is consensus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sexual_slang&direction=next&oldid=433246691]

* The sexual slang word was re-added. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433736577]

* SlimVirgin, who opposed the consensus earlier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sexual_slang&diff=433246487&oldid=433237208], removed the sexual slang term: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433754180] "'back to Coren, per BLP, UNDUE, and NOT''"

* The sexual slang word was re-added. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433756987]

* Coren removed the sexual slang word again: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433758018] "''For the last time, BLP is not negotiable, and is not subject to consensus. If you want to make a statement against Santorum, do in an a suitable forum.''"

* SlimVirgin requested page protection. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=433788051]

* The sexual slang word was re-added. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433787544]

* An admin locked the template: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433788493] "''Protected Template:Sexual slang: Edit War, discuss it out please...''" (not the full quote)

* Coren went to the locking admin to remove again: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeltaQuad&diff=prev&oldid=433792461] "...''You really shouldn't protect the BLP violation into the template''..." (not the full quote)

* Locking admin removed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433789168] "''per request @ UTP, you guys are talking about a BLP issue, so Coren is right, should be preemptivley removed for now. Discuss before a change.''"

* Further discussion took place. Then Coren sought arbitration. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sexual_slang&diff=next&oldid=433891818]

This is a content dispute about including or not a sexual slang word on a sexual slang template. Talk page consensus is to include.

It says [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests|here]]:

:"''A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia.''"

It says [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|here]]:
:"''The arbitration process within the Wikipedia community exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, bureaucrats, nor mediation have been able to resolve.''"

Coren has not yet attempted formal [[Wikipedia:Mediation|mediation]] to resolve this matter.

Lesser options to help in this matter may have included [[Wikipedia:Third opinion|third opinion]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|request for comment]], [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal|informal mediation]], and submission to the [[Wikipedia:BLP noticeboard|BLP noticeboard]].

As a content matter, santorum is sexual slang. The American Dialect Society gives the word the definition: [http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.americandialect.org/2004_Words_of_the_Year_Final_Vote_.pdf&q=santorum]

:'''santorum''', n., the frothy residue of lube and fecal matter which sometimes is the result of anal sex.

Given the foregoing, I do not think the arbitration committee should be reviewing this matter at this time.

Regarding criticism that the above is not about the [[santorum (neologism)]] page, Coren's notice to that talk page says: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santorum_(neologism)&diff=433894086&oldid=433893405]

:"''I've opened an arbitration request '''regarding''' the BLP violation in [[Template:Sexual slang]] (as well as in [[Template:LGBT slang]]). Given that most editors here are likely to have some level of involvement, I thought it best to notify here and let people comment there as needed.'' (emphasis added)

Coren does not appear to have been actively involved in editing either the santorum (neologism) page or its talk page at the time of this request.

Regarding criticism that the above is not about Cirt. Cirt is not an involved editor, no longer working on these pages. The present result, Coren's preferred template, is not the end result of conflict between Coren and Cirt. Further, Coren has not sought to resolve any matter related to these pages with Cirt prior to coming here (to the best of my knowledge). [[User:Gacurr|Gacurr]] ([[User talk:Gacurr|talk]]) 23:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

::@AGK: Notice for matters beyond the scope of "the BLP violation in [[Template:Sexual slang]] (as well as in [[Template:LGBT slang]])" was not given on the template or article pages. Community processes (outside of editing warring, page protection, and discussion) have not been tried within this scope. [[User:Gacurr|Gacurr]] ([[User talk:Gacurr|talk]]) 01:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by [[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]]===
Though I do not support the article, especially in its current state, I recommend that the Committee decline this case for the main reason that this would amount to presiding over a content dispute, which is over the Committee's purview, not to mention this would set a dangerous precedent. As far as whether or not ArbCom should "take leadership", the same can be said about the general editing community doing the same. There are several options still left open which have not been attempted yet. Finally, accepting this case would virtually be pure [[pendulum arbitration]], in which too many people are going to be shut out, since the Committee would be forced to make the choice between "heads" and "tails", as Iridescent put it; the discussion is already devolving into "you want this article removed because you're a Republican" vs. "you want this article kept because you're a Democrat", and we cannot afford to have the same broad brush painted over the Committee, should they accept and make a decision. –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Commenent by uninvolved Scott MacDonald===
I've no comment on the content issues surrounding Santorum as I've not examined them at all.

However, there are serious CONDUCT issues that the Committee should address, particularly since I can provide evidence of a pattern of serious BLP violations, across multiple articles, caused by long-standing agenda pushing by Cirt.

I'd love to assume good faith and say "well Cirt has withdrawn and so, whatever he's done here, he's now uninvolved." However, there is strong evidence that Cirt has used the rouse of withdrawal in the past to evade scrutiny and sanction.

There was long-standing criticism of his activities on Scientology BLPs - mainly it has to be said from people with agendas. However, eventually I and others began to take a closer look and find a pattern of BLP issues. Here is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#BLP_violating_use_of_rollback just one]. In response to this scrutiny and a threat of arbitration, Cirt stated "I accept that there has been significant criticism relating to my editing of certain pages relating to Scientology. I will do my best to take this criticism on-board, and adjust my future actions accordingly. ... I am going to shift my focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#Note_about_Scientology_related_editing]. Unfortunately, his actions soon indicated otherwise. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#Stepping_away_from_Scientology_articles here one month later], and there is plenty more where that came from!! I can provide it as required.

It is hard to criticise someone claiming personal family problems. However, our concern for BLP subjects has to come before our concern for someone who chooses to edit their articles in a consistently reckless manner - and whose assurances are not credible. I suggest this case be accepted to look at the clear conduct and BLP issues it raises. This has gone on long enough and must not be ducked.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 23:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by MONGO===
If any editor is engaged in promoting (by way of serious enhancement of) anything that unnecessarily smears any BLP, then they should have their editing history examined. I can't see how the enhancement and promotion of this article can be seen as anything other than a BLP issue....the only reason that doesn't slap us in the face is because it is in a subarticle. Arbitration Committee...a ruling on the misuse of this website for any BLP smear campaign is of paramount importance.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 00:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Comment by AGK ===

I have avoided chiming in until now, because there has been an adequate level of community input thus far. But I first want to opine on the merits of accepting this request, and second want to draw attention to something important that appears to have been missed. I will be brief.

I was initially opposed to the Commitee accepting this request, because it could result in policy by dictum - a Bad Thing. But the thinking of Newyorkbrad and especially of Iridiscent seems sound to me. We require a resolution from ArbCom, because no community process has adequately resolved the general issues at play.

On another note, I would ask that some response be made to the points by Scott, two sections above here. He proposes to bring evidence against User:Cirt, which would be a purely conduct-based matter; no mention seems to have been made by the arbitrators of anything except issuing general guidance about the BLP and sources question. Framing this request as two cases may be the best route, to differentiate between the broad issue of content and policy, and the narrow issue of the template edit war and of the alleged misconduct elsewhere of Cirt (on which I will make no comment other than to say I am surprised). [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 00:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Comment by Ched Davis ===
<small>(''edited per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=434454294#Points_of_order:_Political_activism_RFAR request]'')</small>

Generally the discussions have been respectful, however, it appears to be gaining heat at an exponential rate. The volumes of text on the santorum talk page, AN, AN/I, templates, and XfD discussions is tremendous. Should the situation continue unchecked, it could get quite disruptive.

My perception: the crux of the issue here is, are there BLP issues to be taken into consideration. Jimbo and the WMF have opined. ([http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people here]), that our BLP mandates should be one of our highest concerns. Item two states: "Taking human dignity and respect ..., especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". My view: A person's and family's surname portrayed in a negative light (considering the "description" of said "santorum", I don't see how it can be considered anything but),is certainly a BLP issue. Perhaps not common in WP, I would say it is not without precedent. I refer to a decision where it deemed improper to use the term "Plaxico" to refer to a person's self destruction. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico_(2nd_nomination) link]) I understand WP:V and WP:RS have strong arguments, and perhaps the Savage or Santorum controversy articles have just cause to include some of this information. Does this justify the article in it's current state, under it's current title, or even the existence of an independent article whatsoever?
Attempted resolution; The first AfD for this article was posted in Aug. of 2006, our 4th closed with respect to the current RfC and this request. Rough estimates indicate that a 55% to 45% is generally the split in many discussions. (although I'm sure someone will debate the exact numbers). Republicans vs. Democrats, or [[WP:Attack]] on a [[WP:BLP]] vs. [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:N]]. The debate has raged since the August 2006 inception. To decline per, “let the community figure it out" is at best I believe naive'
Another point: The material is already covered:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love#Santorum here],
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Statements_regarding_homosexuality here]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality#Public_reaction_and_criticism here], and
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage#Political_advocacy here]
In effect, we are guilty of doing a little "Google bombing" ourselves. Do WP:V and WP:RS absolve us of our responsibility to our BLP rules? I don't believe they do.

Segue to the responsibility of Wikipedia. There are those who say we aren’t responsible for the the Google ranking issues. To suggest we not take responsibility for our own presentations and their outcome however, is in my belief a very poor choice as a responsible community. I understand this is not the normal remit of Arbcom, but as divided as the community is, I'd have to think that addressing this issue sooner, rather than later, would be the more productive solution. By "case", or "motion" something which guides us in what is and what is not considered a BLP issue might be appreciated.

tl;dr version: This discussion has been ongoing for almost 5 years. How long until it is "ripe" for someone to look to a higher venue? Respect and best. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

*'''@WNT''' <small>(edited)</small> Sir, here you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wnt&diff=prev&oldid=434426809 state] that June 2 [2011] was the first you became aware of the controversy. I find this hard to reconcile with your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=434445626 statement] that you understood and perhaps even used the term "santorum" back in 2004. In response to Flatterworld, you say: "Savage's campaign is just a mild and divinely inspired sort of poetic justice, converting bitterness into belly laughs". I'm astounded: if someone took my last name and recycled it into a pejorative term, I'd not consider it a "belly laugh" or "divinely inspired"; I'd be deeply offended. While I don't for one minute share Mr. Santorum's views, I believe two wrongs do not make a right. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Drmies===
; Prolegomena

First, Coren's claim that Cirt's edits "have obviously been designed to support the campaign" is not so obvious to me. There are lots of possible reasons for timing as well as frequency--the media were resurrecting Santorum weeks ago already; how could they not in the current Republican field? I also work on articles based on the headlines. To read cause and effect into Cirt's edits one would need tea leaves. Second, Jayen466's persistent accusations of Cirt are beginning to sound a bit hollow, and I'm dismayed that they get to use every noticeboard and every talk page to vent them. Third, I'm not surprised that it came to this even before SlimVirgin's RfC had run its course: this is potentially one of the biggest problems we could face, and our more or less democratic system (yeah yeah, a !vote is not a vote) does not seem to be producing a result, though I have to say that the level of friendliness is refreshing.

; Disclaimer

I have worked together with Cirt in the past--but I have worked with a lot of people here in the past. I do not believe that this article should be deleted; I do not believe it's a BLP violation; I do not believe it's part of a concerted effort to harm the chances of Santorum (seriously--who would want to harm his campaign? What would be the point? He has no chance!). I am not a Republican. I am also not a Democrat. I do not have the right to vote. I think all pets should be spayed or neutered. I only know what Dan Savage looks like from his picture in the article. I do believe he's better looking than Santorum. I do not like Scientology (though I once knew a really, really sexy one, in San Francisco!), and for the life of me I can't figure out what that would have to do with anything or why this was ever brought up on this page.

; Accept

Though I am not happy with Coren's editorial actions and especially not with their wording of this request (half of which sounds like an RfC on Cirt), I think maybe it's time to get this over with. While there is a high level of participation on the talk page and in SlimVirgin's merge proposal, there is no doubt in my mind that this has '''no consensus''' written all over it, and then all this will start all over again.<p>I hope that ArbCom will decide on whether they consider this a BLP violation, but I also hope that they will speak on the matter of the perceived intent of editors of this article, and on how one could possibly determine that without resorting to conspiracy theories. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Comment by RxS uninvolved ===
I'd normally not get involved in something I have no history with but I'd urge the committee to accept this. This is (at least to me) not a content issue. It's a conduct issue that involves an editor pushing what amounts to a POV in an indirect manner. I'm sure you have but if not please look over the ''Santorum/Savage edits'' section in Slim Virgins comment. That's really concerning to me and needs examination. Clearly there are BLP issues here that shouldn't have to for Wikipedia's circuitous dispute resolution process. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 04:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by WJBscribe===
I am frankly astonished to read below the comment, "''I dislike the idea of Arbcom dictating policy by fiat, but I think this may be necessary''" from an Arbitrator. Not only is it not necessary, it would be a gross expansion of ArbCom's role outside its remit. This is a content dispute. It should be resolved by editorial consensus like any other. I don't see any user conduct issues that warrant arbitration. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 13:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie. Given your stated opinions on the subject matter of the case below, I think you should recuse from hearing it. Better to let an impartial panel handle it if ArbCom does accept it... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 13:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

===Comment by Resolute===
I was coming to say the exact same thing WJBscribe just did. Iridescent - whether or not you like the idea of dictating policy by fiat is immaterial, as you have no right to do so in the first place. The ink isn't even dry on the updated Arbcom policy, and you're already making a mockery of it. Well done. I think Roger Davies' comments are the most salient. This is primarily a content issue, of which ArbCom has no jurisdiction, while the editor most visible for potential conduct issues has already withdrawn from the arena. At this point, there is very little Arbcom could hope to accomplish. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 14:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by slightly shocked FT2 ===
48 hours after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=434421108&oldid=434412078 asking for evidence], little or no evidence has been provided that this matter should be properly decided other than by community consensus. All respect to the weight of [[WP:BLP|BLP]], this is still '''''in no way''''' evidenced as an issue bypassing that norm.

"Being potentially harmful to a living person" is not a cause for an Arbitration case, otherwise we would rename Arbcom to BLPcom -- and probably ask it to handle violations of NPOV, OR and V as well. It's suggested that Wikipedia is being used by editors to promote a personal attack, but it is well known that when attention is focused on a page, related templates and pages gain extra scrutiny and are created or refined - often radically. Coren provides '''no evidence''' showing that this was a concerted bad-faith campaign by editors as his case claims, nor any evidence of a significant view within the community that updates to related pages were attacked as untoward. It is '''not''' "obvious" or "self-evident" that "the objective is the attack" as claimed &mdash; Coren provides '''no evidence''' to back this for those who want to check if it's true. The nomination reads "RFCs" (plural) but I cannot find multiple RFCs and there don't appear to have been more than one, which is still ongoing. 4 evidence links are devoted to AFDs but multiple AFD's are not "evidence" of any kind for RFAR - many articles have more AFD's ([[Encyclopedia Dramatica|ED]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (5th nomination)|five]], 28 articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=intitle%3A%226th+nomination%22+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion&fulltext=Search&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns15=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search six or more], [[Daniel Brandt]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)|fourteen]]) and the most recent enacted AFD was a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (neologism) (3rd nomination)|fairly straightforward keep]]. The claims in this case rest on an unsupported assertion, essentially that the entirety of one side is mistaken so Arbcom must stipulate which side is "right". We don't allow that as a reason to arbitrate any other topic.

On Coren's other point, we assess articles based on encyclopedic significance (decided via discussion of editors) not [[WP:DENY|denial of recognition]]. This does tend to provide positive feedback, since already-prominent (=notable) topics thereby gain extra prominence, but if it were not encyclopedic we wouldn't cover it. The community is well aware of this and it's routinely taken into account. We wouldn't critique munitions-related articles for promoting accurate chemistry information to the top on Google (potentially informing or facilitating bomb-making) either.

Even if the issue holds water, then the outcome is ''still'' a community and not an Arbcom issue, once any poor conduct is resolved. A parallel to this request would be: "Arbcom doesn't decide Israel-Palestine ''content'', but will rule whether [[WP:RS]] or [[WP:NPOV]] are being correctly applied to the article." It's a request to create a content decision masquerading as policy clarification. ([[WP:AP|''"The Committee does not rule on content..."'']])

Respect to Coren whom I have known as a principled user for many years, but this is a classic case which the community is more than competent to decide and he has brought no evidence of it needing arbitration. Practically too, I cannot think of a better way to get "[[Santorum (neologism)]]" onto every reputable paper in the world, than to have Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee provide oxygen by stepping in to "save" him from his own real-world issues. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Merrill Stubing===
" BLP derives from core content policies of accuracy and sourcing, together with content neutrality. Lying behind it is the knowledge that if content does not match these policies, it may do harm; but content that fully meets them may also lower the reputation of a BLP subject. If it does, that's because of what's happened in the real world. We describe the real world. Some of the contributions here are getting dangerously close to saying we must deliberately distort the world we see and report because some people can't be trusted to be told the truth. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)"

What more needs be said on such matters?

Aside: anyone who says Wiki is being "gamed" to "hurt Santorum" via the Santorum froth thing is daft. The American Savage had begun this stuff when Wiki was barely a glimmer in Larry Sanger's dreams. Seriously, look at the chronology of the "Santorum prank" and get over yourselves. Wikipedia is a late comer to this and even if you deleted any and all reference to Santorum (the man, the fecal matter, whatever) the massive Google bomb thing would STILL remain indefinitely especially as Wiki is irrelevant on google rankings et al (no follow, children, is activated I see). Ban all political gamers.

Also, whatever "Wikipedia" decides to do will have real-world political news coverage. Tread lightly or it's on your heads. Reflect the real world and don't try to sanitize it, and you'll be fine. Take that as a threat because that's functionally what it is in reality. You all are supposed to be neutral repeaters of what is out there and that's it. Do more and you become active partisans. [[User:Merrill Stubing|Merrill Stubing]] ([[User talk:Merrill Stubing|talk]]) 21:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by DHeyward===
I find it necessary for the ArbCom to accept this case yet I fear it will not set any precedent and be viewed as a very narrow ruling. Wikipedia IS a battleground for political ideas. It shouldn't be but it is. Some editors that are otherwise very good on non-political topics lose all sight of objectivity on political articles. Definitions of notability, reliable sources, BLP. It is amazing to see that some articles on political topics are very well done and balanced and adhere to encyclopedic standards. While others are complete garbage. BLP articles that are just paragraph after paragraph of "On Such and Such Date, Subject said 'insert tabloid quote to further built-in belief or leave negative impression.' Often those paragraphs are created because an editor wants an idea pushed into the article and the only defendable way is to quote it from the primary source. It makes for real crappy articles and it's really bad practice and violates a number of principles but somehow what would be thrown out of a historical biography of a dead person makes it into BLPs of political figures because of the POV battles.

But back to santorum. The word was created to vilify a living person because he holds to a particular belief system. The events about how the word was created might be notable. The person who created it might be notable. Certainly Sen. Santorum is notable. Even the term used as a google bomb might be notable. But creating reference after reference to the same thing in all those articles starts to look like Wikipedia is being astroturfed by editors that believe this word and issue is important enough to replicate to every political article that can be created to mention it. It's not encyclopedic. In fact, I personally find that the original campaign is an attempt to squelch debate and speech and thoughts and ideas which is antithetical to Wikipedia and I am abhored that continuing that campaign here on Wikipedia is acceptable. The word deserves mention in two articles: the article for Dan Savage and perhaps notable google bombs. That's it. It doesn't belong in Sen. Santorum's page. There shouldn't be a separate article for "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality" (even the title should be considered a BLP violation as it apparently applies to only a single interview and implies that Santorum is unique in his view. There shouldn't be a neologism article on santorum. The Rick Santorum biography page should have a section on "Rick Santorum's views on X" It should be a synopsis of his views, not attempts to smear with partial quotes from interviews coupled with rebuttal quotes.
As has been stated before, the global makeup of Wikipedia as well as the age demographic pushes the average viewpoint of a Wikipedia editor significantly to the left of the American center. Consequently, articles of American political figures tend to portray views of left of the American center subjects as 'correct' and right of center politicians as 'controversial'. This is a form of confirmation bias that WP has a difficult time addressing without lots of handwringing. Santorum articles (all of them) as well as articles of other political figures bear this out. This isn't a conscious decision of editors to be biased, rather it is the lack of dispassionate objectivity. People not politically motivated don't edit political articles.

Ideally, the Wikipedia articles on political figures should provide views without passion or undue weight. Sub pages and articles on specific incidents or viewpoints of a single person should have an extremely high bar for inclusion. Direct quotes of a sentence or two that hasn't evolved into historically significant phrases should not be included in these articles. "Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall" or "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" are historically significant quotes. I have yet to see a historically significant quote from Sen Santorum yet his pages are riddled with quotes. Consequently his views should be summarized, not created for the reader to discern through primary sources. Instead what we have is WP editors choosing which quotes of Santorum are relevant, and then choosing which rebuttal quote is most appropriate. Quotes are a primary source. Rebuttals by political opponents are primary sources. They are most inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. As an example, for Rick Santorum, it might be appropriate to have a section on his views of gay marriage. It could also include his views on consenting homosexual sex. There is no need for any quotes as there is nothing historically significant that he has said on the matter. The section should also refer readers to articles on the "U.S. Constitutional Right to Privacy" and "Gay marriage in the United States". There need not be any rebuttals in the Rick Santorum BLP article as he is expressing views that are not unique to him. They should be covered dispassionately in articles that cover differing viewpoints. Quoting what Ted Kennedy or the Boston Globe opinion editor says of a Rick Santorum quote is hardly relevant to a) Santorum's views or b) Santorum's life.

So to summarize, I hope ArbCom takes this case not with the intention of a narrow ruling on this particular word/spat/contest but with the larger goal of setting precedent for BLP articles on political figures, content forking and acceptable styles for BLP articles. Particularly with respect to sub-articles and sections specifically targeting small, historically insignificant events where the event is a summary item of a viewpoint.

What brought me to the Rick Santorum page was an article in the newspaper about abortion. It mentioned Santorum. I came to wiki to find out Santorum's views on abortion as I knew he was "pro-life" but not where exactly he was (i.e. rape, incest, health/life of mother, etc, etc). After wading through section after section of quotes of nonsense and POV pushing back and forth, it became obvious that there is no section on his views on abortion. That's pathetic since it is apparently one of his main attractor/detractor issues. Get rid of the nonsense and set real rules for how political biographies and personalities should be written. It's not enough to be simply "neutral." It's not enough to simply be "sourced." Quality rules need to be set and have teeth and an arbcom ruling setting boundaries that editors can cite is the first step in getting some of these disasters under control. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 07:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Richard-of-Earth===

A day doesn't go by that attempts to use Wikipedia to cause others grief have to be fended off by wikipedians. It is seen as vandalism. It is a never ending battle. It is why there are BLP rules and why pages get various levels of protections. But I am sure the editors, sometimes, laugh at them as they remove them. Some editors keep pages to preserve the funnier ones. People like to make a joke at someone else's expense. It is not just Dan Savage or just some people, it is most people. Really it could very well be everyone, just part of human nature. But mature people realize such jokes do not contribute to making a society livable and learn to restrain themselves and insist others do the same. Given the number of vandalism attacks there are a lot who don't. You have ask yourself, what if was your name on the top of the Santorum (neologism)‎ page? What if your child had to go to school to face laughter at the great joke your family's name has become. Are we letting it slid because it is just one politician, one name, one family and so many other people will enjoy the article? Given human nature, can we really rely on consensus? The BLP rules are design to protect people from unnecessary grief without having to rely on consensus being reached if ever. All that is being asked is the essential information regarding the phenomena be moved where it causes less grief for a family. It is not a political statement, it is not censoring, it is being considerate, it is doing the right thing. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 08:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Chester Markel===
The Google ranking of [[Santorum (neologism)]] higher[http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%2Bsantorum&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5ee24c012758f1c1&biw=1920&bih=910] than [[Rick Santorum]] is unfortunate. One could certainly make the case that Rick Santorum deserves it, that it's no more uncivil than Santorum himself, but Richard-of-Earth has hit the nail on the head. There's no evidence that anyone else in the Santorum family is responsible for Rick Santorum's [[Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality|anti-gay comments]]. [[Rick_Santorum#Family|Think of the children]]. If changes to the number of inbound links to the neologism article on Wikipedia could demote its Google ranking, this should be done. [[User:Chester Markel|Chester Markel]] ([[User talk:Chester Markel|talk]]) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Dreadstar===
ArbCom’s top priority is to impose binding solutions between editors and, let’s face it, to safeguard the reputation and content of Wikipedia – there is no higher calling for dispute resolution. Trying to take something that goes against the very spirit and purpose of Wikipedia and claiming it’s “just a content dispute’ or comparing it to Hitler’s balls is absolutely ludicrous (''although humorous..'' :). There’s no foundation for that, and if our current policies don’t support that view, then what exactly is [[WP:IAR]] for? If all else fails, this is an IAR situation for the reputation and purpose of WP, nothing excuses the existence of this purported neologism and campaign article, even after the latest rename – it’s clearly an attack article that helps promulgate the attack itself. This is not a content dispute, this is a dispute about the very purpose and spirit of Wikipedia, and perhaps the letter of the law has not upheld the spirit. Maybe we need to rewrite or add to the current policies if this doesn’t fall under IAR; and if it does then what process does IAR take in the face of non-consensus. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Lankiveil===
My view is that this is a content issue and not within ArbCom's purview. [[User:Coren]] has been involved (along with other editors) in a concerted attempt to get this article either removed or bowdlerised, the most recent manifestation of which was an extensive discussion and !vote at [[Talk:Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content]]. There was no clear consensus on what action to take, but less than half of the 100+ people who responded agreed with the reasoning for getting rid of the article based on BLP. If I were a cynic, I'd say that this case is just an attempt to get a second bite at the apple by trying to get a result out of ArbCom that has been rejected by the community of editors at large.

As I believe this is currently just a content dispute, I urge ArbCom to decline this case. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 03:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC).
===Statement by Septentrionalis===
If the ArbCom were to intervene in this, I should like the policy [[WP:TITLE]] (and the practice it reflects) to be considered. Titles should be recognizable, natural, and short; descriptive titles should be neutral; all of these argue for a title which adds as little as possible of Wikipedian's opinions to the subject of the article.

Either we should have a title which is what most people ''call'' the subject, like [[Boston Massacre]], one that is what most people consider the subject to be, like [[Katyn massacre]], or one that is as simple as possible, and includes no editorializing. I doubt the first two exist; patently there is no such title available among Wikipedians. That leaves as close as possible to the simple slogan.

This is what we do for other instances of negative campaign slogans; not only [[Gerrymander]] but [[Dave the Chameleon]] (which is also an attack on the name of a living politician by his opponents), it is also what we do with epithets like [[kike]].

I would also appreciate it if those admins who have demonstrated partisan opinions on both sides of this would take care not to use admin powers on American political issues until the election; their neutrality is in question. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by completely uninvolved Stephan Schulz===

I won't comment on the main issue. However, I strongly object to the idea that we should let concern about search engine operations guide our internal articles. It's not our job to ensure good or suitable search results for Google. They are quite capable of tuning their own algorithms. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 00:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
===Statement by Mike Christie===
I have been involved with several of the discussions linked at the top of this page; the most recent attempt I made to get a broader discussion of this issue was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=415861412#Rick_Santorum here] I have been involved with the article about the neologism for years, and in my estimation the key problem is that because the intent of Savage's campaign was to obtain publicity it is extremely difficult to evaluate the good faith of editors on both sides of the issue. Those who support the existence of and a prominent placement for the article might be attempting to achieve a political goal, or might be acting in good faith; similarly for those on the other side of the issue. Increasing the number of involved Wikipedians will help balance out bias, but I think ArbCom should consider the possibility that the specific nature of the advocacy involved -- generating coverage specifically in order to increase publicity -- may make it very hard to judge this article by our usual rules. I appreciate that it is a content issue at the moment, and that Arbcom may not wish to intervene for that reason, but I am pessimistic about the chances that the outcome will truly reflect sources rather than advocacy. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 02:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/7/2/1) ===
* '''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. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
** @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. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Awaiting further statements; I am aware of some of the issues that have arisen related to this matter, but do not consider myself fully informed. One of the questions I ask myself in differentiating content-only vs conduct disputes is "If this same edit/series of edits was made by an unregistered or newly registered account, is it likely that community sanctions would have been applied or at least discussed?" Perhaps those making statements may wish to address this point. SEO techniques are potentially harmful to this project regardless of whether they are applied by a new editor or a longterm editor; I'd also like to hear from those making statements as to whether or not this is an issue in this matter. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have strong feelings that the article in question is inherently problematic with our BLP policies. I understand that thanks to the campaign and the politician's own actions, it's widely spread. However, that does not release it from our own policies. It is my opinion (and my opinion only), that in the balance of things, the encyclopedia would be better off without this article. Wikipedia should not be used as a revenge platform. But that is only my opinion, and I don't think anyone wants ArbCom to rule on the content here, just the conduct. I'd like a bit more discussion if a RFC can at least ameliorate the worst of this issue, or if this has to be handled here and now. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 19:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:After review, voting to '''Accept'''. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 01:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
*Awaiting additional statements or developments; I have limited wikitime right now but will vote in a day or two; leaning toward acceptance. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Accept'''. The Committee should provide guidance on the important BLP and related user-conduct issues raised by this case. I know that other dispute-resolution processes are being used; if they lead to a consensus outcome that would make this case moot, I am open to changing my vote, but that strikes me as unlikely. If accepted, the case should be relatively straightforward and we might consider putting it on an expedited timetable (one week from the opening for evidence). Without prejudging the case in any way, I agree with Jclemens that a decision need not include sanctions against specific editors to be useful in providing guidance. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. pending RfC. Main thrust of case is content. Await more broad-based community input and urge editors to make their opinion known. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' per [[User:Jayvdb/recusal#WS]] and I've also been involved in this. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 02:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Recuse'''; obviously. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''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 ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair|''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. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 10:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*Provisionally '''accept''', very grudgingly. I dislike the idea of Arbcom dictating policy by fiat, but I think this may be necessary; the dispute shows no sign of reaching a compromise. Per the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Purpose and role of the Arbitration Committee|''Ireland article names'']] precedent, ''"The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision."'' This shows all the signs of being one of these cases. As with the similar case on hyphens, if those involved can come up with a process which generates a result which most of those involved can live with (be it a full-scale RFC, a formal vote or a coin-flip by which all parties agree to abide, the process isn't as important as the fact that all those significantly involved agree to abide by it), I'd be extremely happy to have Arbcom step aside completely (or sign off on the community-generated result, if people feel it would be helpful to bring said result into the scope of arbitration enforcement). This situation will occur more and more often, as people wake up to the fact that manipulating the nature of the sources that fuel Wikipedia is a way to subvert Wikipedia's neutrality as regards a topic; one way or another, at some point we need to formulate how we deal with these situations when they arise.&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#660066">iridescent</font>]] 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline '''in its present form, with the greatest respect to my colleagues. This isn't the dispute about naming these fairy isles - it hasn't a 200 year old history with blood spilled. Nor is it the coin-flip hyphen vs ndash argument. This is just a politician who has decided to run for president, who has become the subject of a memorabl(y unpleasant) joke. The discussion as to whether to reference and include it is not any different to whether to include that Hitler only had one ball, or Lloyd George knew my father. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. The article content is about a high profile individual, and is covered by the biography of a living persons policy, however that doesn't override the principle that in general the Arbitration Committee doesn't resolve content disputes. I suggest trying mediation or a 'full scale' Request for Comment, and if that doesn't work re-applying for arbitration. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 12:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''': there are three main issues, I think, in this sprawling mess. I'll comment on each individually.
**The neologism/eponym: Lampooning political opponents by whatever means has been around since the dawn of civilisation. Nothing we say or do is going to change it. This one involves a particularly unpleasant association but I don't suppose [[Elbridge Gerry]] was delighted when his local newspaper came up with [[Gerrymandering]] or [[Charles Lynch (jurist)|Charles Lynch]] was happy to be deliberately associated with [[lynch law]]. In this instance, it all comes down to arguing about [[WP:RS]], [[WP:UNDUE]] and so on ... in other words all the usual stuff that muddies the waters of controversial highly polemic BLP stuff. I don't see a role for ArbCom here.
**Conduct issues: I suppose a case could be made out for examining the ''motives'' in external linking but where would that get any of us? In the broader world, the motives of journalists in writing a particular piece are as unfathomable and as objectively indeterminable as the motives of the editors quoting them. Down this path lies endless drama and certain madness, especially when clearly egregious examples can already be satisfactorily handled by existing community prcessses.
**Cirt: there are complaints here about Cirt's editing and motives. He has responded by withdrawing from the topic. Absent any evidence of any coherent dispute resolution process on the broader perceived issues with Cirt's editing, I do not see this as an immediate priority for ArbCom. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
::@Jayen466: As I said above, if there are issues to be addressed concerning Cirt and at first sight the evidence so far suggests there ''are'' broader areas of concern, identify them all and separate them out from this particular mess, which is complicated enough already. The usual preliminary is an RFC/U. For the avoidance of doubt, in simple terms, I'm not declining a case about Cirt in perpetuity, I'm saying "not now and not this one". &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
::@ResidentAnthropologist: we only normally expedite cases involving admins when the admins are using admins tools as part of the dispute with eath other. An RFC/U will give the community an opportunity to place things in a broader context and perhaps examine possible underlying issues (cf. Will BeBack), completely unrelated to the Rick Santorum controversy. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
::@ Hobit: Let's wait and see if it's a durable solution. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' for now, I'm inclined to think that this is more of a content dispute, and the community is able to cope with it. Will reconsider if new evidence on Cirt's conduct issues come to light. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small></sup> 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:30, 19 June 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=435096060"