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
Raul654 (talk | contribs)
70,896 edits
My 2 cents
Line 98: Line 98:


'''@Arbcom''' I really hate to draw the net so wide but the reality is there are a number of ongoing feuds that continue to disrupt the process of Encyclopedic content creation. I think if we limit it to the ten points I have outlined in the case would be manageable. Narrowing the scope would only mean those issues would continue to simmer just end up back here in the end. We can either nip these feuds in one big case and get to the bottom of these accusations that keep manifesting in topic area after topic area. Or sit and do it all case by case and pretend that the interrelated editors and conflicts have no relevance. We need to look at things in the big picture of how these editors interact with each. What has gotten us nowhere the little snapshot of each conflict that We have been doing for years now. [[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] <small>[[User_talk:ResidentAnthropologist|(talk)]]•([[Special:Contributions/ResidentAnthropologist|contribs]])</small> 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
'''@Arbcom''' I really hate to draw the net so wide but the reality is there are a number of ongoing feuds that continue to disrupt the process of Encyclopedic content creation. I think if we limit it to the ten points I have outlined in the case would be manageable. Narrowing the scope would only mean those issues would continue to simmer just end up back here in the end. We can either nip these feuds in one big case and get to the bottom of these accusations that keep manifesting in topic area after topic area. Or sit and do it all case by case and pretend that the interrelated editors and conflicts have no relevance. We need to look at things in the big picture of how these editors interact with each. What has gotten us nowhere the little snapshot of each conflict that We have been doing for years now. [[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] <small>[[User_talk:ResidentAnthropologist|(talk)]]•([[Special:Contributions/ResidentAnthropologist|contribs]])</small> 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
'''@Will (3)''' Would you correct the misspelling of my name? [[User:ResidentAnthropologist|The Resident Anthropologist]] <small>[[User_talk:ResidentAnthropologist|(talk)]]•([[Special:Contributions/ResidentAnthropologist|contribs]])</small> 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


=== Statement by totally uninvolved Mathsci ===
=== Statement by totally uninvolved Mathsci ===

Revision as of 23:07, 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 and 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 as it is now.

As We all know the Santorum mess blew up 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 at the end of the first week that it is going nowhere. We have generated over 500 kb of hostile debate filled with bad faith and accusations. There are currently two camps at the present that cause arbitration to be needed. Those who feel Cirt actions are contrary to community expectations and those who feel its a witch hunt initiated 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, or Cla68 engaged in Bad Faith editing in Lyndon Larrouch topic area?
  4. Did Jayen466, Scott Macdonald, Delicious carbuncle, Cla68 lead a campaign of bad faith editing through Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology?
  5. Have 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 violations of WP:NPA specially the bullet including ad-homiem attacks?
  8. Do the accused editors in fact have such a COI that invalidates 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 have in fact argued the above questions in multiple forums and topic areas for years in some cases. These editors represent issues and personal feuds 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 action and clarify these issues once and for looking at all editors involved.

@MathSci

Complicated disputes are what arbcom has been founded for. 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 conflict. The reality is that would really leave out alot of problematic material that in 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 irrelevant 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 We 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 clarifying it. 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 banned Herschelkrustofsky for months. Pretending that has not caused problems in other discussions is silly. I will provide diffs 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]

@Will,(2) On the clarification of who I drew up as parties here there were to main groups. (1) Those who felt their were sincere problems with Cirt's editing with minimal issues on the those who filed the RFC/U. (2) those who felt the RFC/U was witch hunt on Cirt with no merit by biased editors. There were a lot people in between on the issue who as I left out but I felt editors in those two extreme ends of the camp were the problem. It may be a reasonable move to reduce the list of involved editors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbcom I really hate to draw the net so wide but the reality is there are a number of ongoing feuds that continue to disrupt the process of Encyclopedic content creation. I think if we limit it to the ten points I have outlined in the case would be manageable. Narrowing the scope would only mean those issues would continue to simmer just end up back here in the end. We can either nip these feuds in one big case and get to the bottom of these accusations that keep manifesting in topic area after topic area. Or sit and do it all case by case and pretend that the interrelated editors and conflicts have no relevance. We need to look at things in the big picture of how these editors interact with each. What has gotten us nowhere the little snapshot of each conflict that We have been doing for years now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC) @Will (3) Would you correct the misspelling of my name? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:07, 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]

I just undid Jechochman's premature closure of the RfC and warned him on his talk page. RfC's normally run for 30 days. He openly stated in his closure that he was closing the RfC because he disagreed with it. So, I placed his comments in the RfC itself as a "view". I ask any admins watching this to help protect the RfC and allow it to run for its full time period and block any editors who try to close it because they disagree with it. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 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. That's in addition to BLP violations like this, or the conduct described here. --JN466 10:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I echo Griswaldo's comments below – if this case is taken, Jehochman should be added to it. This bizarre close is an insult to every editor who endorsed all or part of the RfC – myself, Cla68, SlimVirgin, DGG, Griswaldo, Viriditas, Anthonyhcole, Collect, Khazar, THF, Pieter Kuiper, ResidentAnthropologist and others who are really unlikely to be sockpuppets. --JN466 16:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Struck, Jehochman has explained it wasn't meant that way. --JN466 18:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I would have been happy to "bury the hatchet", as you put it, had there been an honest acknowledgement from Cirt that editing like that outlined in the above BLPs is indefensible, and damaging to this project. Instead, Cirt very deftly and deliberately sidestepped the RfC, just as he sidestepped the 2007 COFS case, sidestepped the RfAr a couple of weeks back, and is sidestepping this one. And I am getting tired of pointing to policy violations that appeared in our mainspace, and receiving vague ad-hominems based on my supposed religious affiliation in return. My last major edit to the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) article was this. You be the judge if it sounds more or less promotional about its subject than Jose Peralta and Joel Anderson. --JN466 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: I would say activist editing of BLPs is a key component here and close to the centre of most disputes, with editor interaction and sourcing secondary issues. (Not all articles were about living people, but they concerned living people.) --JN466 21:34, 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]

@everyone - if everyone who edits BLPs is expected to recuse, then that is obviously a silly position to hold <g>.

I would, again, suggest that ArbCom make strong statements about BLPs,

  1. that editors should neither extol nor denigrate any person through their edits on biographies, nor seek in any way to do so.
  2. Further, that since "opinions" made by others in "reliable sources" about the article subjects have been so substantially misused, that ArbCom should strongly state that BLPs are ill-suited for "opinions" about the person who is the subject of the biography, and that prudence requires that claims made about any living person should be restricted to facts and not opinions by individuals or groups.

I realize this is a quite controversial position to take, but I would ask that the members of the committee seriously discuss it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 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]

@Risker. Re: What to focus on? Frankly I think the biggest problem is with administrator oversight of Cirt's behaviour. Cirt is a charming guy. He has worked on articles about unpopular cults and has had to deal with some exceedingly relentless POV pushing zealots, which has won him some bitter enemies and a lot of friends. The admin corps and others now lazily assume any criticism of him is necessarily meritless. Witness Jehochman's closing statement for the Cirt RfCU. I doubt he even read the RfCU page, let alone the discussion behind it. JN and others have raised serious concerns about Cirt's behaviour but, because some have been in dispute with him on new age religion pages, it's assumed they're just zealots out to get Cirt, their motives are impugned and their complaints are dismissed. Over and over again. Cirt is engaged in serious political activism here, and the admin corps is letting it happen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:19, 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]

@RFC closed. - As I see it, the way the RFCuser in regard to User:Cirt has been closed by someone - User:Jehochman - clearly considered to be involved just adds weight and demonstrates why the the Arbitration request is required. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshuaZ - User:Jayen appears to (and no one is suggesting otherwise) write NPOV content of high quality so there is no need for anyone to "go after it" - and nobody has. User:Cirt on the other hand has written content (multiple articles) that has been divisive, disruptive, and in violation of core policy, called promotional, and been considered to be attacking and beneficial to off wiki campaigns and has been complained about and deleted and discussed at length. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 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]

Statement by Jehochman

I have just closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt, a relatively easy task because there was a solid majority of logic behind one position. It's also inherently unfair for a user to be faced with RFC and RFAR at the same time. Editors should not try to win disputes by filing multiple dispute resolution processes at the same time in an effort to wear down an opponent.

The Committee would do well to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt carefully and familiarize themselves with the shenanigans that went on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt. Past cases to deal with personal feuds have gone no where good. Please be cautious about accepting another "omnibus we-hate-each-other case". The community is well capable of placing an interaction ban, should feuding editors be unable to disengage. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo reverted my closure of the RFC.[4] An administrator does not become involved by virtue of continuing administrative interventions in an attempt to promote the smooth operation of the project according to policies and guidelines. I do not make any substantial number of edits to the topics in dispute here, nor am I actively engaged in any disputes with these editors. Would somebody please restore the closure of the RFC. We must not allow disputants to edit war over closure actions merely because they disagree with the result. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid the omnibus case fiasco, please ask the disputants to file one or more new requests identifying compact groups of editors and issues to consider. Jehochman Talk 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Semitransgenic

this escalation from the RFC is unwarranted. The amount of energy Jayen has expended on initiating this process, evidences an unhealthy obsession with Cirt's editing behaviour, one that stretches back to conflict over [[5]]. We now have two factions, divided along idealogical lines, so framing the debate as somehow having something to do with "the good of the project" is fallacious, because it is clearly the result of resentment and emotional imbalance. We could throw up examples of other editors here, including Jayen, who have edited pages in a fashion that reflects particular idealogical biases, so suggesting that Wikipeida is capable of being a bastion of impartiality, when it is populated by editors with such differing political, religious and philosophical outlooks, is disingenuous. This is primarily about a group of editors with an axe to grind and this "good of the project" flag that is being flown is a smoke screen. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis

Don't accept this case because you'll end up doing more harm than good. New disputes are likely to flare up during an ArbCom case like this, consider e.g. what Cla68 is complaining about now (I'm not saying that his complaints have any merit, its just an example of a new dispute coming up). There are a lot of similar disputes that people have learnt to live with, but sometimes a particular issue is too much for a group of editors. But the moment you want to intervene there, all these other hidden disputes will flare up. Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Coren

I remain convinced that there is a substantial and fundamental problem here that needs to be addressed regarding misusing Wikipedia's own notability and visibility in order to alter perception or notability of a subject. That living person's biographies are the battleground where those disputes tend to be played on makes it imperative that the committee steps in.

I am rather less convinced that this needs to be focused on any specific editor. While it is self evident that specific incidents coalesce around specific editors, the problem is that our rules were not meant to prevent that kind of abuse not that partisans end up abusing them. (This should come as no surprise; our founding principles could not take into account that the project itself would become a major source of notability or that one's Wikipedia article would someday become a critical part of one's public image.) — Coren (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griswaldo

If the Committee accepts this case I strongly urge adding User:Jehochman to the list of involved parties. In his comment here he speaks of "shenanigans" but that's just what he is himself engaged in. Many of the comments in the RFC related to Cirt's use of noticeboards and the help of friendly admins to bully other editors or to get out jail free himself directly involve the supportive activities of Jehochman. This editor has a history of running interference for Cirt. That he took it upon himself to close the RFC and to leave a comment chastising those critical of Cirt leaves me speechless. This has gone far enough.Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

There are two or three broad cases here: 1) Cirt-Jayen (and related) 2) Cult activism, and 3) political activism and notability. Other than Coren (who has been up in this whole thing recently), I do not think any of the committee should recuse due to involvement. I am unsure about the structure and level of effort required for such a case. But I do think the normal process might get a little tl,dr for everyone. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I agree that Jehochman is not univolved in a general way to this, as the user is very active on noticeboards and other dispute resolution mechanisms and has firm opinions as to other involved users motivations. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tom harris

I suggest the arbs reject this. Cirt has to a degree acknowledged the concerns and withdrawn from some areas. It's hard to imagine anything good coming from an arbitration. Coren makes a good point above and I share his concern, but fixing that isn't what the arbcom is for. I'm listed as a party, but don't anticipate taking part. Tom Harrison Talk 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by only-involved-in-an-administrative-capacity The Wordsmith

I'm only mildly involved because I endorsed closure of the RFC, but I remain neutral on the issues here. I urge the committee to take up this case, because I don't think the community can deal with this by itself. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Jusdafax

Suggest rejection. To accept in my view protracts the continued case, as I see it, of Cirt's detractors, who have forum shopped this matter to excess. After a lack of consensus here previously, Cirt's critics failed in the Rfc/U to gain traction with the community. Now this, designed in my view to further discourage a prolific and valued content creator. Cirt has edited difficult areas of the encyclopedia and has made tough calls as an admin; now he is the victim of violators of WP:HARASS and WP:BATTLE as a consequence. Efforts by some of Cirt's critcs to portray themselves as neutral and concerned 'whistleblowers' are without merit. Of special note in the Rfc/U was a later-withdrawn attempt to foment a "Cirt's enablers" list, designed, as are many of these on and off-wiki tactics, to have a chilling effect. NOTE: Though not named as involved, I endorsed in the Rfc/U and have commented elsewhere. For the record I am a previous WMF volunteer both on OTRS and at the Wikimedia offices in San Francisco, and as such have disclosed my identity. Jusdafax 19:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Tryptofish

There's enough history of drama that it would probably be helpful to the community if ArbCom could get this sorted out once and for all. However, I do not accept the premise that the RfC/U on Cirt had come to an impasse and needed to be closed. I was in the process of working through the evidence when it was abruptly closed, and I think it entirely possible that uninvolved members of the community could have made some sense of it if we had been given the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I commented in the neoligism RfC, but do not consider myself involved in any other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrators, prompted by Fozzie's question: I think it would be a mistake to treat this as an omnibus case, not least because so many of you would end up not participating. Better to split it up into several focused cases. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently familiar with this to be able to advise intelligently as to how to do that, but perhaps it would be useful to ask whether the numbered list of questions in ResidentAnthropologist's statement could be grouped into maybe three or four cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved User:Richwales

Per Risker's request for feedback, I think there is an issue worth studying here w/r/t WP:AGF in the midst of policy disagreements. See the view I expressed in the RFC/U (here, including comments #3 and #4) — as well as my comment (#5) made to the RFC/U view by Andries (here).

Regarding my RFC/U view mentioned above, the conflict I had with Cirt "some time back" was over the Another Gospel article — and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (and an understanding of the whole anti-cult, anti-Scientology editing controversy, which I was totally clueless about at the time), I think I can understand how Cirt might have mistaken me for another partisan committed to removing and/or disrupting "unfriendly" material at any cost — though I do still think my attempts to improve this particular article were reasonable (if perhaps not well executed) and were deserving of more respect (or at least more courteous reproof) than I got. This was a year and a half ago, and I probably wouldn't even be bringing it up again now except that it appears Cirt has continued to act overly aggressively with other editors more recently. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by uninvolved Raul654

Several days ago, I made a comment on Cirt's RFC wherein I said that there should be consequences for people who file an RFC with false or otherwise trumped-up allegations (A large majority of people who commented on that RFC said essentially the same thing: that the allegations made in the RFC against Cirt were bogus, normal editing behavior spun to make it look malicious). Shortly thereafter, Cla68 issued an ultimatum on my talk page, demanding a retraction of my statement within 24 hours, and threatening that he "will act on it" if I did not. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that no such retraction would be forthcoming, and (pursuant to Cla's further demands) went on to document several allegations made by him and Jayen in the RFC that were obviously, objectively false. The whole discussion is worth reading, and can be found here.

In his above RFAR statement, Cla68 snidely comments that "it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way," citing me by name. It takes a hell of lot of chutzpah for someone who uses the RFC process as a form of harassment to bemoan as "inappropriate and hurtful" the community's response to that harassment.

I'm not involved in the underlying sitation here, and I have no opinion one way or the other on whether or not this case should be accepted. But I wanted my rebutal included here as part of the record. And if the arbcom should accept this case, I think it should issue a statement of principle that filing a false RFC is a form of harassment, and an FOF that some of the allegations made in the Cirt RFC were completely false and most of the rest were trumped-up charges pertaining to ordinarily, productive editing behavior. Raul654 (talk) 23:01, 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 (3/0/2/4)

  • 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]
  • Comment I'm considering recusal in this case, due to my editing habits in and around other areas of Wikipedia's coverage of religion, and solicit input from the parties on whether they think my recusal would be appropriate. If no one thinks I'll be inappropriately biased after a day, I'll chime in. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements. I am concerned that the scope of this case as presented may be too wide - having so many issues together in one case may result in none of them receiving adequate treatment. –xenotalk 14:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse; given the concerns I expressed recently regarding an article that was substantially written by Cirt. — Coren (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, as there's a lot in this case that could be addressed; as John points out however nothing will be really addressed unless it's opened on a relatively narrow scope. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse - I was involved in a lengthy dispute with Will in regard to List of cults. I've also edited other articles in this subject area, so I'll sit this one out. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks to me like there are several different cases being proposed here, all somewhat interrelated. More feedback from those who are commenting about whether this should focus on interpersonal issues between a small number of editors, or whether we should be looking big-picture at the manner in which WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV balance against the creation of new articles or content, or the coverage of cults, or balancing WP:BLP against other policies, would be useful in determining scope. Risker (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will be inactive for at least the beginning of the case, but I'm going to post a few thoughts, and I would appreciate (brief) answers from parties and interested onlookers: A) From the request and the statements of some of the parties, it looks like this has the possibility of being the "Great Omnibus Case of 2011". There are those who have a very wide-ranging view of what the Committee should consider, and others who want it to be focused more narrowly. Would it serve all to open one wide-ranging case? Should the committee split the case to be several related cases, related but not interdependent? Put aside some of the side issues that are possibly not yet ripe for arbitration? B) If accepted, would an injunction (or instruction, more accurately) to the parties to not interact with those with opposing views needlessly during the case (outside whatever's necessary for whatever case does get accepted, of course) be useful? C) And this is more of a personal aside. The more wide ranging the case, the longer it will take to issue a proposed decision and the more likelihood of a "hung jury" proposed decision. What do the parties feel that is the absolute core issue that must be resolved here? SirFozzie (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=437955734"