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
Cirt (talk | contribs)
199,086 edits
→‎Clerk notes: ++ added statement.
Line 159: Line 159:
===Statement by Off2riorob===
===Statement by Off2riorob===
As per User:ErrantX. I am willing to join in. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
As per User:ErrantX. I am willing to join in. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

===Statement by Cirt===

I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&curid=22747298&diff=434373298&oldid=434361411 stated] at the previous, unsuccessful RFAR and in my RFC/U [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt&diff=436699540&oldid=436699085 response] that I've withdrawn from any area that could be remotely contentious, and I've apologized for creating misgivings in the past. I've returned to serving the project as well as I can in uncontroversial areas, and I wish to continue doing this.
In response to Casliber's query "unless the two can agree to bury the hatchet somehow", I undertake to do anything the Committee advises me to do to attempt to resolve any issue that Jayen has with me. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


=== Clerk notes ===
=== Clerk notes ===

Revision as of 13:53, 5 July 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Cults   5 July 2011 {{{votes}}}
[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) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Cults

Initiated by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) at 06:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by ResidentAnthropologist

Cirt is longstanding editor in the Wikimedia community with 12 FA, 87 GA, and 152 Dyks, an Administrator on multiple projects, OTRS volunteer, and check user on Wikinews. Jayen466 is a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community who has been involved with a number of BLP clean up initiatives assisted in a dozen FAs, and a number of GA and DYKs. The situation currently has been brewing for years between various players at various times. I am currently listing the most relevant to the situation it is now.

As We all know the Santorum mess blew up several in the past month. After a failed arbitration request, Jayen466 and Cla68 filed a WP:RFC/U on User:Cirt to address the perception by many editors that he may be engaging in Political activism.

The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions and several editors have agreed a week in that it is going no where. We have generated over 500 kb of hostile debate filled with bad faith and accusations. There are currently two camps that are present that cause arbitration to be needed. Those who feel Cirt actions are contrary to community expectations and those who feel its a bad By pro-cult editors on Cirt. These questions have floated over the entire topic area of "groups alleged to be cults" and related topics."

  1. Has Cirt engaged in political activism against multiple individuals and groups to the detriment a NPOV encyclopedia?
  2. Has Jayen466 engaged in bad faith editing and harassment against Cirt?
  3. Have either Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Cla68 engaged in Bad Faith editing in Lyndon Larrouch topic area?
  4. Did Jayen466, Scott Macdonald, Delicious carbuncle, Cla68 lead a campaign orchestrate a campaign of bad faith editing through Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology?
  5. Have a groups of Pro-NRM and pro-Cult editors been acting in bad faith to seek action on Cirt, Will Beback and Slim Virgin?
  6. How does self declared past former connections to such groups interact with WP:COI?
  7. Are accusations COI on editors inter actwith WP:NPA specially the bullet including ad-homiem attacks?
  8. Do the accursed editors fact have such COI that invalidate their raised concerns?
  9. Have a editors who disagree with Cirt and Will Beback been bullies or the bullied?
  10. How does communication and membership with the Wikipedia Review interact with Community expectations?

This recent flare up with the RFC/U has shown my long held thought that a number of editors are in fact arguing the above questions in multiple forums and topic areas for years in some cases. These editors when viewed as represent an issues that have been simmering for years. Multiple Arbcom cases have occurred involving many of the above editors and the animosity surrounding those cases persists. I urge arbcom to take actions and clarify these issues once and for looking at all editors involved.

@MathSci

Complicated disputes are what arbcom has been founded upon. The Community for several years has been unable to decide on any of these issues. Diffs will be provided but I have just spent an hour and 1/2 doing this when I meant to be in bed two hours ago. The parties I have listed will no doubt agree that these accusations have been flung and be able to provide diff between now and tomorrow when I am awake. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 08:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@John Vanderberg, I considered scoping this to Jayen466-Cirt. The reality is that would really leave out alot of problematic material I my opinion is equally problematic. The Santorum issue was really the last straw for some folks but all other issues are in the cult topic area. That I believe is the crux of it all and many would agree. Cirt's leaving the topic area is irelevant anyway because we need a finding to decide that. Otherwise We will spend years of sniping over whether he really did do it or not. If leave the Santorum out of it, I am fine with that as it was only the last straw in the long running dispute. However pretending that is was not a factor in all this only further complicates the issue rather than clarifing. As I consider the the anti-scientology stuff just as much activism as the Santorum thing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 08:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will, I am being bold here and lumping them together but its there because a group of the same editors in different topic areas keep getting together and duking it out. It needs to end as it is harmful to both the community and the encyclopedia. Will has been ranting about Cla68 conversations with the benned Hershlekrusty for months. Pretending that has not caused problems in other discusions is silly. I other people have which I will provide diff in the morning of all this. I think I have clearly laid out a number of accusations that have been tossed by both side in the dispute. I dont stand behind allof them other than they have been said. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 09:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by totally uninvolved Mathsci

Far too diffuse and nebulous for an ArbCom case with too many parties, too many confused issues and no diffs of misconduct. That is what life is like; it cannot possibly be sorted out by mere mortals. Personal or collective appeals to a deity (or deities) could possibly help, but not ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ RA: normally ArbCom cases centre on a fairly precise group of individuals, issues or set of articles where problems have arisen with conduct. Unless this is made precise, ArbCom is more likely to rule on possible misconduct during the actual case, which would probably be unmanageable by either clerks or arbitrators if it had too wide a scope (judging from the RfC/U). Perhaps, after some sleep, RA can slightly rejig his request by reformulating it with a narrower and more precise scope. There is no rush. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

This ArbCom request by Resident Anthropologist was unexpected, but I can understand why he is filing it. I don't think Cirt is the problem here. Cirt has acknowledged the RfC, and I think should be allowed some time to show that the concerns have been taken on board. Some of the responses by other editors in the RfC and its talk page, however, have been inappropriate and hurtful. Me, Jayen, and/or several other editors have been compared to the Nazis, been called liars (by Raul654), and accused (by Will Beback) of filing the RfC because of our presumed participation in a religious organization. Again, it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way. Cla68 (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Stephan Schulz

I explicitly endorse "The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions". No opinion on the rest of the case is implied. Everybody is welcome to co-endorse this statement.

Statement by Will Beback

ResidentApologist seems to be asserting that I'm a bully and have edited in bad faith. ResidentApologist has not engaged in any dispute resolution regarding these accusations, nor does he offer evidence that there is any problem with my editing.

There are ongoing problems with NRM/cult topics, due partly to the active involvement of strongly partisan editors. But the individual topics are so different, and collectively the whole topic involves so many editors, that I don't see how a case could address them all together without going out of control.

Cla68 is correct that I assert that some of the editors who have participated in the current RFC/U about Cirt have a long history of disagreement with him over new religious movements, a history which they do not want to discuss. However the RfC/U was only filed recently and is still quite active.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to guess how ResidentApologist chose this list of people to include as parties. It appears to be nearly identical to the list of people who've commented on the talk page of the Cirt RFC/U.[1]   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ErrantX

@John; in case it is not clear (and note I do not necessarily endorse this view) Cirt changing topics is the matter of concern, because the same issues just surface again in a few months (whether that is his fault or that of others, no comment). In addition the charge of political activism, if in any way true relating to any of these editors, is by far the most serious and wiki-damaging charge. If you examine anything, it should be this.

It will be a long, complex case with lots of evidence I expect. So what. That is the job, I'm afraid, you guys were elected for :) --Errant (chat!) 09:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the RFC/U and some of the related past DR methods I have some further comments:
  • Absolutely it is a cluster fuck
  • I have sympathy for the view that Cirt is having mud slung at him in the hope that it sticks. The cookery sourcing issue is an example of such things that are idiotic to bring up as a serious issue; it's an error of language I suspect we have all fallen for at some point. With that said there are specific serious concerns brought up in relation to certain activities, issues in style and sourcing that need addressing by Cirt (preferably as an individual).
There are three or four issue areas r.e. Cirt the committee needs to examine:
  • It was argued that writing in a promotional tone is an issue we all suffer from occasionally, I agree. But Cirt looks to have used this tone extensively in a specific sub-set of articles and does not appear to agree it is problem. The evidence regarding the writing of articles on request is problematic because the content written was fairly promotional; the committee could examine whether this is just conflation of two issues (i.e. Cirt's editing style and the request for the article) or whether there was an intent to portray the company well.
  • Cirt certainly does react aggressively to defend his content (by which I do not mean he writes angrily, but he uses the systems quickly and effectively to try and stamp on dissent). There may be something to examine here behaviour wise (I have not formed an opinion on whether the system has been abused or not).
  • There is certainly legitimate concern relating to the misrepresentation of sources, enough to suggest a review of some of Cirt's work to re-assure as to whether this is a prevalent problem. The issues raised are examples of using content that does not support a position and spinning it to support that position (the clear case being the Santorum article lead addition). This could be related to my previous point.
  • The political agenda one, though, is the most seriously problematic. Looked at in a certain way Cirt's work could be construed as designed to promote a certain cause or aim, subtly, through the use of WP's systems. In another light it could be completely innocent coincidence. And in the middle there could be a bit of both. I think it is well within the committees purview to establish who is accurately portraying this string of events and what the real underlying explanation is - if nothing else to resolve the issue.
All in all there is definitely something to examine here; Cirt is a prolific writer whose work seems to fall into various contentious and difficult areas. That there is conflict is not unsurprising and in many cases I would look at this and think "meh". But I think enough evidence of potential underlying problems has been presented to merit the committee examining this - if the problems are accurate they need resolving, and if they are untrue then Cirt needs to be publicly cleared of the mud. --Errant (chat!) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Jayen466

There is evidence of political activism by Cirt that is directly related to Scientology. It concerns agitating against politicians who had taken a stance broadly in favour of Scientology:

  1. Riverside County supervisor Jeff Stone, whom Anonymous members have described as in bed with Scientology for supporting an ordinance against Anonymous picketing at Scientology's headquarters:
    When Stone sought the Republican party nomination for the California State Senate, Cirt wrote what can properly be described as political advertisements for his opponents, Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson, and gave them main page exposure before the election.
  2. Hiram Monserrate, who had supported Scientology's New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project:
    When Monserrate sought to regain his New York State Senate seat, Cirt wrote a political advertisement on his opponent, Jose Peralta, and placed it on the Wikipedia main page three days before the election (as well as on Wikiquote's main page for the week before the election). He also edited Monserrate's article to make it more unfavourable.
  3. Sharron Angle:
    Over three-quarters of her biography consisted of Scientology allegations last year: [2][3].

This type of editing is a major point raised in the RfC/U, and is probably not unique to these articles. If the case is taken, it should be in scope. --JN466 10:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved (?) Collect

I am involved here solely because I made a coment at the RFC/U. My position there, and here, is that

The RFAR recently made did not, in my opinion, stress the BLP issues strongly enough at all, and I suggest that this RFC/U strongly state to everyone that neither puffing a person one likes (political or otherwise) nor making sure material which properly falls under BLP in my opinion (scatological "neologisms" based on a person's name, for example) is proper as far as the editors here are concerned. Further, that Cirt appears to have engaged in both behaviours to an exceeding great extent, and is properly admonished by the community for such behaviour. Further, that those participating here wish all administrators to be strongly aware that being a "BLP zealot" as some would unkindly view those with such views on all BLPs, is, in our opinion, proper on Wikipedia entirely. Lastly, that while we all sympathize with editors who can not devote much time to answering such charges, we are cognizant of the number of edits made by such an editor. IOW, if one can make fifty edits a day, one is able to participate here. Cheers.

I suggest that if this case is accepted, that the acts and edits of the actual "involved parties" regarding BLPs will be examined closely and fairly. Collect (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Anthonyhcole

I participated in the recent discussion around the Santorum (neologism) RfC, and the ongoing Cirt RfCU. I have nothing to say about cult editing but there definitely seems to be two opposing camps here. Good luck with that. As for Cirt, the desired outcome of his RfCU was basically that he abide by specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines. His response was along the lines of, I haven't breached those policies, but it might have looked like it to others, and he reiterated his intention to stay away from BLPs that have political overtones. He has previously undertaken to avoid other areas.

My reading of the RfCU is that he does edit tendentiously, does misrepresent sources to push a view, and does produce embarrassing political advertisements in support of the Anonymous agenda, and blatant commercial advertisements. He doesn't see this, or doesn't see anything wrong with it. Is JN harassing Cirt, or just pointing out bad behaviour when he sees it? He's been accused relentlessly of the former, so it would be good to have an opinion from you. I've seen some of the history and in each case it was JN justifiably, in my opinion, raising questions about inappropriate behaviour. But if you take this on, hopefully you'll examine a bigger sample than I've seen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

This is unnecessary. I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. There's no serious problems with the articles about fringe religious groups beyond the usual editing issues. Nor for that matter is there any serious issue with Cirt's editing. In the current RfC about Cirt, about twice as many editors have said that there is no substantial problem with his editing than have claimed there is. Indeed, there are only six users (two initial and four endorsements) who have endorsed the main claim. That goes up to 11 users when one includes the next piece. In contrast, look for example at Gamaliel's opinion which sees minimal issues and at one point goes as far as to include the line "Are you fucking kidding me?" in regard to some of the claimed evidence against Cirt. That opinion has 21 endorsers. It seems clear that the communal consensus is that there's no serious issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Casliber, the situation doesn't require Jayen and Cirt to be bury the hatchet. The situation in that regard is pretty one sided. I don't think anyone has any examples of Cirt going after Jayen or articles written by Jayen in any substantial fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Off2riorob

As per User:ErrantX. I am willing to join in. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

I stated at the previous, unsuccessful RFAR and in my RFC/U response that I've withdrawn from any area that could be remotely contentious, and I've apologized for creating misgivings in the past. I've returned to serving the project as well as I can in uncontroversial areas, and I wish to continue doing this. In response to Casliber's query "unless the two can agree to bury the hatchet somehow", I undertake to do anything the Committee advises me to do to attempt to resolve any issue that Jayen has with me. — Cirt (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • I am willing to accept a case about cults in general, with the list of parties carefully managed to only include people who have had bitter disagreements on cult topics; the political activism editing would be beyond scope. Alternatively, a different case specifically about Cirt and Jayen is worth considering, including only parties who've been closely aligned with either party, however Cirt's decision to change his topic of interest may render this unnecessary. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • accept - this has been brewing for a long time. Alot of this is driven by ongoing feuds. I must say this case makes me feel like running and burying my head in the sand but I concede that the buck does stop with the committee and I tend to think we've reached that point. I need to think about the whether the scope needs to be as broad as the request requests. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay then, the one problem that has been ongoing is the issue between Cirt and Jayen66, which I would see as the most pressing reason for a case, unless the two can agree to bury the hatchet somehow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=437873461"