Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Notes by arbitrators

Following requests by email from the principals for extensions to submit evidence, the deadline for submitting evidence has been extended to 15 August 2011. This may well be further extended to allow time to respond to new evidence submitted.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jayen466

Current word length: 537; diff count: 40.

Poor sourcing

Tom Cruise Purple (March 2010)

• 17 March 2010, DYK.
• Sources:
  • Usenet
  • Gallery of the Absurd
  • E Online
  • Circus Hour
  • Gawker Gossip Roundup
  • Radar Online
• [1], [2]

Santorum (neologism) (May 2011)

• SPS: [3] [4], 1971 novel that misspelt "sanctorum". [5]
• Reintroduced.
• "Gonzo Crosswords", "Geek Limerick Contest" [6], [7] [8], [9][10].
• Background: [11] [12] [13].

Misrepresentations

Werner Erhard (book) (September 2009)

• 15 September 2009. Book sympathetic to Erhard. Cirt quotes offline review: "The writing is, moreover, appalling: formularized zest, officious enthusiasm that is thoroughly uncontagious."
• Lieberson wrote that, but not about this book.
• Lieberson described it as: "attractively written, never shrill or unduly proselytizing, careful to avoid the hysteria and tribalism that usually characterize the early years of movements like est."

Knight and Day (June 2010)

• Tom Cruise film, made $150m profit. [14].

• Lead: "it garnered a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes". Source.
• 24 June 1010: Cirt reverted (... let's avoid constant updating of the Rotten Tomatoes statistics.) another editor who put, correctly: "Review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reports that 53% of critics have given the film a positive review ...".

• "Removed the plot, as it was 1) Unsourced, and 2) Promo/spam language." [15]. Plots don't need sources.

Santorum (neologism) (May 2011)

• 11 May 2011: "The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of 'deliberate coining'".
• 13 May 2011, giving the impression santorum is listed in this dictionary. It isn't.
• Source quote request: [16][17][18][19].
• Source wording: [20]

BLP issues

Dan Fefferman (November 2009)

• Unification Church member. Created 5 November 2009, using several offline sources. DYK 10 November.
• That day, BLP subject complained Wikipedia stated he "was accused of contempt of congress by the Fraser subcommittee but either that source or the authors of the article fail to mention that I was never in fact cited."
• Cirt: "Can you suggest some additional independent reliable secondary sources to use?"
• Info was available here for example.
• Note Santorum link (Gorenfeld).

Julia Moon (December 2009)

• DYK 26 December. Hatchet job.

• Positive reception in NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times.

List of Scientologists (June 2010)

SPS:

• 11 June 2010. 8 December 2010[21].
• 11 June 2010.
• 16 June 2010 (Usenet, website of topic-banned Wikipedian.

Meade Emory (October 2010)

• [22] [23] [24]. [25].

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (November 2010)

• 3 November, highlighting 1990s incest allegations against Erhard.
• Article: "In the early 1990s Erhard faced tax and family problems", cited to "The est of friends."
• Source: When Erhard's reputation took a nosedive amid tax fraud and incest allegations in the early '90s, he fled the country. (Later the tax charges were dropped, and the accusation of incest was withdrawn.) (cf. [26], [27], [28]). Cirt used only half the info.
• 4 November: User:DaveApter complains the omission violates BLP. Cirt:
  • DaveApter (talk · contribs) has failed to provide any reliable secondary sources here on the talk page to back up above claims that Celeste Erhard "publicly retracted her allegations".
  • DaveApter (talk · contribs) has failed to provide any reliable secondary sources here on the talk page to back up above claims that Werner Erhard was "ultimately vindicated by the IRS".
• 8 November: DYK, without the balancing information. Discussion on Jimbo's talk page.

Tom Cruise (2006–)

Main contributor:

• Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2 DYK hooks)
• Being Tom Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK)
• Blown for Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK)
• Michael Doven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK)
• Trapped in the Closet (South Park) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)#Tom_Cruise_parody) (TFA in 2008)
• ScienTOMogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Miles Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tom Cruise: Unauthorized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tom Cruise: All the World's a Stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lions for Lambs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (film did poorly)

Generally mocking/negative.

Other

• Non-neutral editing, especially politicians' bios before elections: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt#Non-neutral_editing, DGG's comments. [29] [30] – [31] [32] – [33] [34] [35] – [36] [37] [38] [39][40] [41].
• WP:Wikibombing: [42].
• Landmark Education: reverting sourced additions as vandalism: [43] [44][45] [46] [47] [48]. Similar: [49][50][51][52][53][54][55].
• Mountains/molehills (ex-Scientologists movie): [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

• I never said this graph, discussed below, showed a Googlebombing-related increase in page views – it shows edits per month and was clearly labelled as such, both in the RfC/U, and the Signpost article the RfC linked to.

• [61], [62], [63].

Evidence presented by Off2riorob

Current word length: 266; diff count: 19.

Mace-Kingsley Ranch School (November 2009)

• On 4 November 2009, Cirt embedded a non-notable, self-published YouTube video making allegations about third parties in the article, in violation of WP:BLPSPS. (Removed by me on 10 April 2010 after RS/N thread.)
• The allegations include hearsay of sexual abuse. Part 2 of the video, linked to via the Commons sister link at the bottom of the article, names a presumably living person as a likely sex offender and asks viewers to take action against him. Commons link, now also removed by me - removed 22 July 2011.

Aaron Saxton (March 2010)

• On 23 March 2010, Cirt embedded a non-notable, self-published YouTube video making allegations about third parties in the article, in violation of WP:BLPSPS. (Removed by me on 31 March 2011, after BLPN thread.)

WP:BLP problems from the RFC User:Cirt

Here are some more BLP problems from the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt:

• Cirt included Gloria Gaynor ([64][65] (see BLPN), Jada Pinkett-Smith ([66][67][68]talk page discussion) and Chaka Khan ([69][70][71]) in List of Scientologists, based on poor and/or misrepresented sources. All three were removed after community discussion.

User:Cirt's WP:OWN problems

• - multiple editors' perceptions of User:Cirt's WP:OWN problems

• Scott MacDonald Scott, again
• Griswaldo
• THF
• Dbachmann
• Pieter Kuiper
• Rich Farmbrough (Cirt later apologized)
• Pelle Smith: [72][73] [74] [75][76]. (The dispute with User:PelleSmith was that user:Cirt wanted to cite Midwest Book Review, a publication that only ever gives 5-star reviews, for critical reception of an anti-cult book. The eventual consensus at RS/N was that it was not a reliable source for critical reception. Admin DGG - took it out. By that time User:Pelle Smith had left the project.)

AN/I threads outlining User:Cirt's conduct and WP:canvassing concerns

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Philip Baird Shearer - block review

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Behaviour of admin Cirt in content disputes

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential WP:CANVASSING by User:Cirt

User:Cirt's NPOV coatracking violations

User:Cirt created this attacking anti Scientology coat-rack - List of deaths related to Scientology - it directed blame for deaths on the Scientology organization when there was none or only claims of association. User:Cirt created most of it on the 26th May 2010

Here is what is what User:Cirt created

In the Dec 2010 AFD the coat-racking is discussed and the closure included detail about it also. the article was sent for deletion review - which was closed on Jan 7 2011 as endorsed after the AFD closer expanded his deletion rationale .

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the related part of the closures rationale - The title of the article is weaselly; it implies that the deaths were caused by Scientology. Despite having WP:RS which mention both the deaths and that the parties involved were "related to" Scientology, the article is a WP:COATRACK. Of the 4 (four!) examples listed, most of them are related to people with mental health issues following the policy of the CoS which advises against psychiatry. An article on List of deaths related to Catholicism talking about people who refused stem cell treatments would be similarly inappropriate, the discussion of those deaths more properly belongs at Stem cells.

comment - User:Cirt defends his content violations with all of his experience and as noted in my evidence, has been accused and reprimanded for canvassing on more than one occasion - it usually takes months or even years to get rid of the worst of his policy violating content.

Evidence presented by Cbrick77

Current word length: 77; diff count: 2.

Interpersonal relationships of User:Jayen466 and User:Cirt

Other members of the community have found Jayen's interactions with Cirt disruptive. [77] as well as bordering on wikihounding [78][79]

Cirt's reply to Jayen was pointed and accused Jayen of activities without providing proof.

Jayen466 assumes Cirt made and added templates to Santorum (neologism) to increase its google ranking, while others, most notably User:Rememberway, make valid cases [80][81] Claims Cirt is forwarding political agendas without a source to make valid the claim [82]

Other Evidence

[83] mailing list discussion on the Santorum (neologism) article.

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Current word length: 495; diff count: 10.

Current editing patterns of the parties

We have here two editors, both of whom have a large number of edits and long experience. To put the other evidence on this page in context, it is very useful to scan through each editor's user contributions for July 2011.

• Cirt made a large number of edits. Many of these were administrator actions, with a great many deletion closures, as well as some user name and OTRS work. Unless there is something of which I'm unaware, all of these actions were constructive and non-controversial. (Relevant to the question of de-sysoping.)

• Jayen made a large number of edits. Quite a few were content-oriented, but a remarkably large proportion was Cirt-related. From what I have been able to observe, Jayen's comments were unfailingly polite and good-faith, but there is an appearance of devoting a very large part of his activity to this focus. (Relevant to the question of an interaction ban.)

Cirt's manner of responding to edit disagreements

• Here, Cirt was challenged on some Scientology-related edits by two experienced users (DGG and Jayen). Cirt responds in a friendly way, and is quick to work constructively with the others.

• Here, in contrast, Cirt is very aggressive in responding to an inexperienced user (Njsustain), taking advantage of that user's good faith missteps.

• Similarly: [84], [85], [86], [87]. Reversions and warnings to an IP, where in context the IP's edits were not clear vandalism, and WP:BRD would have been appropriate.

Cirt's manner of responding to dispute resolution

• [88]: Cirt's entire response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. I asked for elaboration: [89], but received no response from Cirt.

Obviously, dropping the stick is generally a very good way of dealing with disputes, but here, there seems to be a pattern of dropping out when there appears to be a serious case, only to have the same issues repeat again and again without really fixing them.

Jayen's manner of interacting with Cirt

• Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing. Note the consensus that emerged that Jayen's original version was tantamount to an attack on Cirt, and Jayen's subsequent expression of regret [90]. (Note also the consensus that we must be careful about distinguishing disruptive editing aimed at search engine optimization, from good editing by an enthusiastic editor.)

• This graph was presented at the RfC/U as evidence that Cirt's supposed Wikibombing led to the dramatic surge at the end of the time period shown. It came out during the RfC/U that the surge actually followed exactly an episode of Jon Stewart's Daily Show in which Stewart did a segment on the subject. Thus, the graph really just shows that a lot of people watch Jon Stewart and then look at Wikipedia to learn more.

Mostly, Jayen has made thoughtful accusations, but sometimes there is the appearance of making too many indiscriminately.

Jayen's interesting insights into Cirt's BLP editing

From the RfC/U talk page: [91], [92], [93], [94]: "@Tryptofish: Yes, that is correct. I believe Cirt is a fine editor outside these topic areas."

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt

Given the polarization, I suggest looking for where editors revised their opinions as the discussion went on, rather than counting !votes. For what it's worth, I'll tout this comment [95] I made in an effort to summarize what various editors concluded.

Evidence presented by Griswaldo

Current word length: 435; diff count: 9.

Cirt using dispute resolution as a weapon

Please refer to my view at the RfC for a full narrative. The additional commentary in the endorsements of the view by User:Njsustain and User:THF, who are involved in this narrative, are good to read as well.

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

• Cirt authored an entry on an obscure restaurant in New Jersey, the Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, which apparently was owned by an ex-Scientologist. (It has since been deleted so I can't link to the article creation or to anything that transpired on the talk page between Cirt and Njsustain.)
• User:Njsustain noticed the article when User:Amatulic plugged it into the New Brunswick, New Jersey entry.
• Njustain felt the entry read like an advertisement and a "puff piece," and started to question its notability. Cirt's response was to drag him to AN/I, where Njsustain was summarily flogged by people who never bothered to really find out if he was onto anything before doing so.
• The entry went to a very contentious AfD where Cirt fought to keep it. The result was no consensus.
• Months later, when the restaurant closed, it went to AfD again and was finally deleted. Cirt, did not fight to keep the entry after the restaurant closed (which is quite suggestive of the idea that the original entry was made for marketing purposes).
• It is notable that Cirt followed the same pattern of fighting for the Kenneth Dickson article when he was still in the election but then not doing so when Dickson was out of the race.

User:THF and Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

• Cirt also created an article on Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which survived an AfD.
• During the AfD, User:THF became involved with Cirt in a disagreement, as THF felt the article should have been merged - [96], [97], [98], [99].
• Cirt then decided to involve himself with a matter that THF was already embroiled in regarding his comments at another AfD (which Cirt had not previously been party to).
• In relation to THF's comments at the other AfD Cirt reported him AN/I and COI/N, venues in which THF was subjected to the same treatment Njsustain had received initially - people ganging up on him without really evaluating his position adequately.

User:Delicious carbuncle and Jamie Sorrentini

• Unhappy with DC's pointy editing of ex-scientologist Jamie Sorrentini's entry, Cirt drags DC to AN/I, where he gets no satisfaction.
• Cirt then tries arbitration enforcement, this time directly appealing to Future Perfect at Sunrise, who commented in Cirt's favor at AN/I, for help.
• FPaS almost instantly topic bans DC from Scientology BLPs.
• After numerous complaints [100], [101], [102] the topic ban was overturned on technical grounds.

Evidence presented by Cla68

Current word length: 133; diff count: 23.

Cirt

• Coatrack concerns at Death of Philip Gale. Cirt added most of the material in question, including edit warring at times. It could be that some of the editors with which he was edit-warring were later banned for editing on behalf of the Scientology organization. If so, it appears that this is a case of taking two to tango: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]. It was in January 2011 that editors NuclearWarfare, Collect, Scott MacDonald, Griswaldo, and Jayen466, among others, noticed what was going on and fixed the article: [122]

• Jamie Sorrentini- Puffery, WP:OWN, and edit warring: Cirt builds article, Scott MacDonald tries to correct some concerns (Scott's summary of issues), Cirt revert wars, then gives Scott a hard time about it [123] [124] Noticeboard thread then backs off
• More concerning Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System- Cirt attempted to poison the well on a newbie editor (MLKLewis) with which he disagreed. Cirt had posted the two warnings in question on the editor's talk page. The diffs in question are [125] and [126]. MLKLewis later explained what took place. Cirt had revert warred MLKLewis' edits, but did not mention plagarism in his edit summary. One month later, Cirt petitioned an admin to take action against MLKLewis, referring to the account as an "SPA." MLKLewis remains a fairly active editor, his/her edits do not appear to support the characterization of "SPA", and the account's block log is clear. I think most editors would be very concerned to find out that an editor who disagreed with them was soliciting other admins to sanction them.

More to come:

Evidence presented by Lexein

The Bridge (2006 drama)

Cirt can be precipitous, but is constructively industrious in this topic area.

• Cirt was at first seemingly destructive, going so far as to propose deletion which I must admit alarmed me, as a gradual contributor to the article. However, the same day Cirt completely rehabilitated the article with a number of sources, some of which I may never have found.
• Cirt can be occasionally dogged in pursuit of perceived "policy violations" of, for example, WP:NOR here, discussed here, where the "vio" merited collaborative rehabilitation with rewording and footnoting rather than summary deletion. In the end, the matter was resolved courteously.
• All my other occasional interactions with Cirt have been positive.
• If I had any advice for Cirt, it would be to refrain from acting on first impulses, then proceed apace with second impulses; this approach, when I have remembered it, has served me well. --Lexein (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.