Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt#Non-neutral editing

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC).

---

---

• Cirt (talk · contribs · logs), former accounts: Smee (talk · contribs · logs), Smeelgova (talk · contribs · logs), Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Cirt has displayed a long-term pattern of

1. Non-neutral editing related to outside political and commercial causes,
2. BLP violations,
3. Evasiveness,
4. Misrepresentation of sources,
5. Inappropriate canvassing on admin and user talk pages,
6. Added 8 July: Describing others' good-faith edits as disruption or vandalism.

1. Cirt will avoid any appearance of promoting outside causes and adhere strictly to NPOV.
2. Cirt will adhere strictly to BLP policy.
3. Cirt will be honest with the community.
4. Cirt will not misrepresent sources.
5. Cirt will cease inappropriate canvassing on admin and user talk pages.
6. Added 8 July: Cirt will assume good faith with POV opponents.

Cirt has edited non-neutrally in articles related to outside causes and campaigns and violated WP:BLPSPS policy. Cirt has been found to have engaged in canvassing.

Users are advised that understanding the problem requires a close review of several lengthy articles. Please do not comment until you have reviewed the article versions indicated. Thank you.

Corbin Fisher

Article concerned: Corbin Fisher.

---

Before reading on, please review this article version for neutrality.

---

Background:

• Cirt created the article on 6 December 2009 [1]. A number of editors have stated that they found its tone promotional.
• He nominated it for DYK and it was featured in this version on the main page on 10 December [2], receiving 4,800 views. [3]
• On 7 May this year, he deleted several paragraphs of sourced non-promotional information, with a poor edit summary: [4]
• In response to concerns about his editing, naming this article as an example, Cirt stated on his talk page, “I came by this article organically, through my interest in the U.S. Supreme Court Case, called Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. That Supreme Court case was cited in another ongoing case at the time, Beck v. Eiland-Hall, an article I successfully took to WP:GA status. Through research on one of the free speech lawyers from that case, I improved the article on attorney Marc Randazza. After performing research on that article, I came by the topic of Corbin Fisher.”
• As ArbCom (and many others now) are aware, this was misleading. Cirt stated this month to Shell Kinney and SlimVirgin that after OTRS communication with Marc Randazza on an unrelated matter, Randazza (Corbin Fisher's general counsel) e-mailed Cirt about creating an article on the company. Cirt has said he replied to Randazza that he "would not accept any form of payment for the article". Cirt refused to disclose the actual conversation, saying Randazza wants the conversation to remain private, and then also refused to disclose just his half of the conversation.

Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson (Republican primary in Riverside County, a Republican stronghold, for the California State Senate)

Articles concerned: Kenneth Dickson (AfD1, AfD2), Joel Anderson.

---

Before reading on, please review this article version for neutrality and also review Kenneth Dickson (or, if you don't have access to the deleted article, review the comments at the second AfD that led to its deletion).

---

Background:

• Dickson and Anderson ran in the June 2010 election against Jeff Stone, who is considered friendly to Scientology by Anonymous. [5][6] (Stone does not have a Wikipedia article.)
• Prior to the election, Cirt wrote an article on Kenneth Dickson, which was featured on DYK. The article was deleted after the election by User:John Vandenberg. Delete votes in the AfD cited WP:MASK, its being "pufftastic", "an advertisement for someone with an eye on political office", and Dickson’s lack of notability.
• [Added 29 June:] The Kenneth Dickson article cited local press sources, but neglected to mention a local controversy around Dickson's anti-gay stance, his support for the Alliance Defense Fund, and his defence of a teenager's right to wear a "Homosexuality is shameful" T-shirt in school. ("Dickson protects hate speech" [7][8][9].)
• On 22 April 2010, Cirt also completely re-wrote the article on Joel Anderson, increasing its size five-fold in a single edit (thus fulfilling the criteria for a DYK main page appearance). The new article ended with a list of endorsements: "... a rock-solid conservative that gets things done in Sacramento ... a great conservative leader who has fought to strengthen the economy by supporting tax credits to encourage new hiring and by eliminating excessive regulations on businesses."
• [Added 13 July:] The article failed to reflect adequately a host of unflattering sources on Anderson; in particular the research undertaken by The San Diego Union-Tribune in October 2009 which had unearthed evidence of campaign finance violations. The report led to an investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission, which fined Anderson $20,000, and also "fined the Fresno County Republican Central Committee $29,000 for its role in funnelling money from Anderson and his supporters through the committee and back to Anderson, and for failing to publicly disclose some of the donations."[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] [end of material added 13 July]
• The article was featured on the main page on 26 April, six weeks before the election.
• On 28 May 2011, in response to concerns about his editing, Cirt asked other editors for an NPOV review. The comment by uninvolved editor User:Tomwsulcer on the Joel Anderson article was, "My quickie look-over of one article suggests the Joel Anderson article about a California state-senator is way too long for its importance -- that is, my guess is that a state senator should merit perhaps a few paragraphs at most, not a novel. My sense is the article is essentially an advertisement for a candidate running for office. The pictures of the candidate with his family -- essentially political WP:SPAM." Joel Anderson is now tagged for multiple issues.
• The election, and the importance of ensuring that Stone would not win it, were discussed on Anonymous forums. A contributor there discussed Cirt's Wikipedia work: "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles. It's a bitch. You have to have the photo provider sign some thing stating permission to use the image, and copyright claims acknowledged. Two politicians didn't even bother to respond, so no pix for them." [20] (Anderson won; Dickson was said by press to have done "surprisingly" well: [21])

Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate (New York State Senate election)

Articles concerned: Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate.

---

Before reading on, please review this article version and this article version for neutrality.

---

Both politicians were discussed on Anonymous noticeboards. [22],[23]. Peralta was the candidate preferred, as Monserrate was considered friendly to Scientology.

• Prior to the March 16, 2010, election, Cirt overhauled Peralta's article: [24], [25], increasing its size 25-fold, and adding an image of Peralta uploaded by himself (compare the image for Monserrate). Cirt’s article featured a blue call-out box: “Now more than ever we need a strong voice in the state Senate and Jose Peralta will be a senator we can be proud of.”
• The article appeared on the main page as a DYK on 13 March 2010, three days before election day.
• It used no critical sources, such as "Smith: Is Jose Peralta Really All That Much Better Than Hiram Monserrate?", New York (magazine); "Assemblyman Jose Peralta scored $500,000 in taxpayer funds for inactive nonprofit", New York Daily News. The article presently carries a voluminous template highlighting multiple problems (fan's POV, peacock, NPOV, advertisement, rewrite, unbalanced, too many quotations, and news release), placed by User:RightCowLeftCoast.
• Cirt also edited Hiram Monserrate, focusing on Monserrate's legal and personal problems at the time. [26][27][28][29] and others.
• Less than one week before the March 16 election, on March 10 2010, Cirt created a Wikiquote page on Jose Peralta, featuring glowing endorsements and no critiques, and placed it on the Wikiquote main page, where it stayed the entire week before the election. Three days before the election, Cirt published an article on Peralta's opponent on Wikinews: [30]

Sharron Angle (added 6 July 2011)

Cirt expanded the 250-word biography of Sharron Angle into a 1500-word article by adding about 1,250 words on Scientology allegations. (According to Google News estimates, only 80 out of over 8,000 Google news sources on Sharron Angle mention Scientology.) IPs who tried to restore the short, factual, article, or add unsourced – or sourced – material to balance the article were reverted and warned for vandalism. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45].

When User:Dougieb tried to reduce the size of the Scientology section, Cirt edit-warred in tandem with another user and then took Dougieb to WP:AN3: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

Eventually, User:NuclearWarfare noticed the state of the article, stepped in and restored reason: Talk:Sharron_Angle/Archive_1#Scientology. Cirt did not push the issue further after that, but was content to let the matter rest. Note that Cirt began editing the article on 18 April, three days after Angle won endorsements for the Nevada Senate elections. Note [56].(end of material added 6 July)

Santorum

Following press reports that Rick Santorum might be running for president, Cirt expanded Santorum (neologism) three-fold last month, to over 5,000 words. The article covers a campaign by columnist and gay activist Dan Savage that seeks to ridicule Santorum by associating his name with anal sex. Cirt's expansion caused concern on the Wikien-l list and among many other editors, including Jimbo Wales, that the article and thus Wikipedia had become part of the campaign. See Signpost report, Explosion of editing related to the santorum neologism noted. In addition to expanding the article, Cirt created three new templates that included the term santorum, and added it to a fourth (Template:LGBT slang), adding 300 in-bound links to the article, which presently is the top Google result for Santorum's surname:

1. On 10 May, Cirt created Template:Dan Savage [57]
2. On 11 May, Cirt created Template:Political neologisms, with santorum included, and added it to about 120 articles [58] (that template has since been deleted, deletion discussion)
3. On 15 May, Cirt added the santorum article to Template:LGBT slang: [59], creating further in-bound links
4. On 15 May, Cirt created Template:Sexual slang [60], comprising about 120 general, LGBT and pornography slang terms, including santorum, and then added it to these 120 articles

In late May, Cirt promised SlimVirgin at AN/I that he would avoid editing in a manner that might be construed as using Wikimedia for political activism. He then immediately proceeded to nominate seven articles on Dan Savage for DYK, each hook linking to articles covering the santorum controversy. Two ran on the main page in a single day. SlimVirgin felt this was inconsistent with the promise he had just given and expressed concern about it on Cirt's talk page ([61]).

Cirt also created a Wikiquote page on Santorum, including self-published sources: [62], (added 7 July:) and placed it on the Wikiquote main page.(end of material added 7 July)

Cirt's unilateral editing of the santorum (neologism) article caused significant disruption, leading dozens of editors to make an enormous investment of time to put the article right again. It resulted in 130 postings on the Wikien-l mailing list alone, a long BLP/N thread, an RfC, and a request for arbitration filed by User:Coren. Following Cirt's departure from the article, it is now, after a rewrite by SlimVirgin, back from over 5,000 words to a stable 1,500 words.

(added 23 July:) It may or may not be a coincidence that Santorum has in the past been linked to Reverend Moon's Unification Church. (end of material added 23 July)

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

Article concerned: Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (AfD1, AfD2).

• Deleted as a puff piece on a non-notable restaurant; kept as no consensus in the first AfD, after User:DGG edited it down significantly, deleted in the second AfD. The owner is a former Scientologist turned critic; Jimbo Wales commented in the AfD: "That there is a connection to Scientology here is quite relevant to any thoughtful understanding of what is going on."

(added 8 July:)

• ANI thread initiated by Cirt, accusing Njsustain of "disruption" and requesting administrative action against him.

(end of material added 8 July)

Article concerned: Santorum (neologism)

• Cirt cited, and quoted, two extremely graphic self-published erotic books in the article [63] [64], and reintroduced them, with quotes, after they were deleted as self-published sources. Other sources he cited in this article with BLP implications included "Gonzo Crosswords", a geek limerick contest[65], and an erotic novel first published in 1971 that was unrelated to the topic, with a long quote (the novel, also used in Wikiquote, had misspelt "sanctorum"). Also: [66] [67]; [68][69].

Article concerned: Mace-Kingsley Ranch School

• 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 User:Off2riorob on 10 April 2010 after RS/N thread.) [Added 14 July] (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 for information about him.) [End of material added 14 July]

Article concerned: Aaron Saxton

• 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 User:Off2riorob on 31 March 2011, after BLPN thread.)

Article concerned: List of Scientologists

• On 11 June 2010, Cirt added a self-published website to the article, in violation of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP, and argued on 8 December 2010, when another editor used the same source in an article he was working on, that it is unreliable for BLP.
• On 11 June 2010, Cirt added a self-published website to the article, as an external link, in violation of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP.
• On 16 June 2010, Cirt added a Usenet post copied on the personal website of a WP user who is topic-banned from Scientology as an external link, in violation of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP.

Similar uses of self-published YouTube videos making statements about third parties in other articles:

• 24 February 2009 (Mark Bunker and Jason Beghe YouTube videos, still present in mainspace).
• 24 February 2009 One video removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011, another is still present in mainspace.
• 27 November 2009. Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.
• 8 November 2009. Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.
• 25 April 2010 Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.
• 27 May 2010 Removed by Cirt on 21 June 2011, after it was posted to User talk:Scott MacDonald/Cirt on 20 June 2011.

Similar:

• 23 November 2008 [70][71][72] ("Message to Scientology", still present in mainspace).

Cirt was the original uploader of all of these YouTube videos in Commons.

[Added 14 July:]

Article concerned: Tom Cruise Purple

• Cirt expanded the article on 17 March 2010; it was a DYK on 24 March 2010, receiving 8,100 views
• Subsequently twice marked as a WP:COATRACK by admin Athaenara (talk · contribs): [73][74][75], BLPN
• This article used the following sources:
  • A Usenet post from alt.religion.scientology: [76]
  • E Online
  • Gallery of the Absurd (originally cited page no longer available)
  • Circus Hour
  • Gawker Gossip Roundup
  • Radar Online

[Added 23 July:]

Article concerned: Knight and Day

• This was a Tom Cruise film that did not particularly well, although it still ended up making about a $150m profit. Cirt has been far and away the most prolific contributor to the article: [77]. A review of Talk:Knight_and_Day/Archive_1 (Cirt has a habit of setting up talk page archiving in such a way that all threads but one will be removed from the talk page, creating the impression that there has been little discussion) and the article's edit history shows Cirt focused on adding negative reviews of the film, and involved in disputes with multiple editors, e.g. "Removed the plot, as it was 1) Unsourced, and 2) Promo/spam language." [78]. Plot summaries are not required to cite sources in Wikipedia.

• The lead stated until a couple of days ago, "it garnered a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes based upon aggregated reviews", sourced to this, which gives it a Tomatometer rating of 53%, with the summary: "It's pure formula, but thanks to its breezy pace and a pair of charming performances from Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, Knight and Day offers some agreeably middle-of-the-road summer action.")

• In this edit on 24 June 1010 Cirt restored the wording "it garnered a rotten rating" after another editor had changed it to: "Review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reports that 53% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 104 reviews, with an average score of 5.6/10", with the edit summary: (not sure why source was removed here. Also, let's avoid constant updating of the Rotten Tomatoes statistics.)

Cirt is also the main contributor to the following other articles related to Tom Cruise:

• Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK x 2)
• Being Tom Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (DYK)
• Tom Cruise Purple (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) (another Cruise film that did not do very well)

I don't see any contributions from Cirt to articles portraying Cruise in a positive light, or to articles on successful Cruise films like Jerry Maguire, The Color of Money or Top Gun. [End of material added 23 July]

[Added 14 July:]

Article concerned: Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

• Cirt created the article on 3 November 2010. The article prominently included allegations of incest made against Erhard about 20 years ago.
• The article contained the phrase "In the early 1990s Erhard faced tax and family problems".
• This was cited to the article "The est of friends." The source wording in "The est of friends" is: 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.).
• The information that the accusation was withdrawn, and that the tax matters were resolved, was present in direct proximity to the sentence cited in the article.
• The article mentioned neither that the tax matter was later resolved in Erhard's favour, nor did it mention that the incest accusations were later withdrawn. (See also [79], [80], [81].)
• DaveApter (talk · contribs) complained on the talk page on 4 November 2010 that neither the retraction of the incest accusations nor the resolution of the tax matter (Erhard was actually paid $200,000 compensation by the IRS) was mentioned in the article, and that the article therefore violated BLP. Cirt replied:
  • 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".
• The article ran on the main page on 8 November 2010, without this information, receiving 3,500 views. Diff to present version. [End of material added 14 July]

[Added 15 July:]

Article concerned: Dan Fefferman

• Dan Fefferman is a member of the Unification Church. Cirt created his biography on 5 November 2009, using a number of offline sources from the 1970s. The article ran as a DYK on the main page on 10 November.
• The BLP subject complained on the talk page that day that the article stated that 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 replied to the BLP subject, "Can you suggest some additional independent reliable secondary sources to use?"
• The information the BLP subject sought to have included was available here for example. [End of material added 15 July]

Article concerned: Meade Emory

• In October 2010, Cirt reverted an edit that removed a clear BLP violation, and reported the other user as a vandal. The user was then blocked. See concerns expressed by User:Scott MacDonald in this thread, User_talk:Cirt/Archive_15#BLP_violating_use_of_rollback

Article concerned: List of Scientologists

• Cirt included Gloria Gaynor ([82][83] (see BLPN), Jada Pinkett-Smith ([84][85][86]talk page discussion) and Chaka Khan ([87][88][89]) in List of Scientologists, based on poor and/or misrepresented sources. All three were removed after community discussion.

[Added 23 July:]

Article concerned: Julia Moon

• This ran on the main page on 26 December 2009. The reception section looked like this:

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, critics called Julia Moon's 1989 performance in Giselle at the Kirov Ballet in Leningrad "barely corps quality".[30] The critics complained about Kirov artistic director Oleg Vinogradov for "compromising the company's standards".[30]
Julia Moon's October 2000 performance in Giselle in London received a negative review from The Evening Standard, "Universal Ballet, which made its London debut last night with Giselle, turns out to be a vanity project. ... The connection between the two principals is so weak that the drama of the second act pas de deux when their marriage is consummated in spirit and for one night only - is dissipated."[31] A review in The Times commented on her performance, "Moon is not a strong dancer - her feet are especially weak - but she is almost spookily ethereal."[32] Financial Times observed, "She shows us some of the technical matter of the piece, though I find her abilities disappointing, and goes through the drifty motions dutifully enough. But the role escapes her."[33] A review in The Daily Telegraph wrote, "she turned out to be a luminous ballerina with a rare fragility of presence."[34] The Sunday Times posited that she may have been a better performer previously in her career, "As Giselle and Albrecht, Julia Moon herself and Jae-Won Hwang have beautiful manners and make shapes to match. He scores better in the second act (despite his ultra-violet tights) with strong, elegant dancing and feeling. Moon may have been more striking in earlier years. She harbours her resources, and her emotions seem hidden behind a mask. All in all, this was not a Giselle of great potency."[35]

Here are the results of half an hour's research in Highbeam and Google News on Julia Moon's critical reception, searching for "Julia Moon" + performance. I've excluded Washington Times reviews, because of that paper's connection with Moon:

"Ms. Moon, an American-born ballerina, is certainly one of the most feminine of dancers, delicately pliant and ethereal. Soft-spoken yet determined, she also functions as the company's general director." New York Times, 29 July 2001

"...the ballerina Julia Moon, the company's sensible general director." New York Times, 5 August 2004

"It was a careful rather than spontaneous performance, but Moon is a lyrical dancer with a gorgeous line and the gracious authority to make one believe that she can calm a raging storm, capture the heart of both a sea monster and a king and make the blind see again." Washington Post, 16 June 2001

"In December 1989, she was the first Asian to perform as a guest principal with the Kirov Ballet of St. Petersburg." Life Times, 10 April 1998

"The Universal Ballet of Korea staged a stunningly beautiful performance of 'Swan Lake' at the Spokane Opera House two years ago. Now, the same company is bringing another classic story ballet, 'Sleeping Beauty,' to the Opera House for a single performance Sunday night." The Spokesman Review, 30 March 2000

"A founding member of Universal Ballet and now its general director, Julia Moon brought aspecial authority and gravity to her performance Tuesday that unified the ballet and added poignancy to her lyrical dancing, whether she was begging for food, rejecting the advances of an amorous sea critter or finding love in the arms of the Korean King." LA Times, 27 July 2001

"Steivel praises Moon's 'line and her emotional quality.' Still, when Vinogradov cast her as 'Giselle' with the Kirov, skeptics had a field day. 'Julia is lovely,' ABT ballet mistress and former UB instructor Georgina Parkinson told the Los Angeles Times. 'But I don't think she could ever become a dancer for the world market.' Moon herself had doubts. 'Vinogradov saw me on a video and cast me,' she recalls. 'Was I prepared? Of course not. But I worked very hard and the Russians were very warm. They love ballet the way Americans love football.' The Moscow News called Moon's performance a 'success'; on a Universal Ballet tour in 1990, the Italian newspaper La Stampa wrote: 'Julia Moon is an exquisite protagonist--a particularly lyrical ballerina.'" LA Times, 9 March 1998 [End of material added 23 July]

Article concerned: Santorum (neologism)

• On 11 May 2011, Cirt added the wording,

The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".

• On 13 May, he also added this wording to the lead. It led many editors to believe the word is listed in this 2,000-page reference work, which it is not. The putative listing was a factor in discussions on whether the article should be named for the word, or the campaign. In fact, the dictionary only discusses the term in its introduction, as an example of the type of term its makers had decided not to include. The dictionary is expensive, and was difficult for other editors to access.
• On 4 June, the source was queried, and a source quote requested. Cirt provided a partial quote—he said it would be too much typing to provide more—and retired from the article after being asked to provide more context [90][91][92].
• The entirety of the relevant source wording is:

As we drew from written sources, we were also mindful of the possibility of hoax or intentional coinings without widespread usage. An example of a hoax is the 15th November, 1992, article in the New York Times on the grunge youth movement in Seattle. The article included a sidebar on the 'Lexicon of Grunge'. The lexicon had an authentic ring, but turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a record company employee in Seattle. An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. 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.

• Cirt misrepresented another source in this edit, writing 'Joshua Gunn described santorum as, "the curiously foul and flowerly, 'frothy' substance created by the intermingling of lubricant and fecal matter during anal play"'. In fact the source says, in a footnote, "Coincidentally, Dan Savage has dubbed the curiously foul and flowery, 'frothy' substance created by the intermingling of lubricant and fecal matter during anal play ‘‘santorum,’’ in honor of Senator Rick Santorum. My thanks to Mirko Hall for this reference."

[Added 22 July]

• Similarly, the wording added here on 24 May 2011 stated that Moser "placed the word among 'associated slang terms' with 'patients’ sexual activities'" (supporting inclusion in the sexual slang template). The word santorum does occur in the source, but it does not occur anywhere near the phrases "associated slang terms" and "sexual activities". [End of material added 22 July 2010]

[Added 14 July]

Article concerned: Werner Erhard (book) (a GA)

• In his expansion of this article in September 2009, Cirt quotes an offline review: "The writing is, moreover, appalling: formularized zest, officious enthusiasm that is thoroughly uncontagious."
• The review is partially available online here. As can be seen, the quoted passage does not refer to the book Werner Erhard, but is a general comment on self-help books Lieberson makes in the introduction of his review.
• To the extent that Lieberson does comment on the writing in Werner Erhard, he says, "It is also attractively written, never shrill or unduly proselytizing, careful to avoid the hysteria and tribalism that usually characterize the early years of movements like est."

Article concerned: Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography

• Cirt writes, in January 2008, "In his review, Dave Shiflett called Tom Cruise 'a top-gun Scientologist who is up to no good'".
• The source states, "Tom Cruise is much more than one of the world's pre-eminent celebrities, according to Andrew Morton's unauthorized biography. He's a top-gun Scientologist who is up to no good. Unlike celebrities such as Bono and Bob Geldof, who merely want to change the world by fighting poverty and similar scourges, Mr. Cruise 'is part of an organization that wants to conquer the planet.'"
• The view is, in my opinion, incorrectly attributed to Shiflett in Cirt's version. To me Shiflett appears to be describing Morton's view. [End of material added 14 July 2010]

Article concerned: Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

• This article has just been at WP:FAC. It states, "The book received positive reviews, and its recipes were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004. ... Several recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004: The Year's Top Picks from Books, Magazines, Newspapers, and the Internet."
• The number of recipes included in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004 is two. [93]stricken 6 July, not helpful --JN466 00:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article concerned: Xenu

• While Cirt has cited, linked and embedded self-published sources, including personal YouTube videos, he argued here that J. Gordon Melton, widely acknowledged as one of the foremost scholars of religion, was a "questionable" and "unreliable" source for Wikipedia. This turns WP:IRS on its head—Melton is the second-most prolific contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Statement at RfAr

At the recent Request for arbitration initiated by User:Coren, Cirt asked on 12 June to be excused from any arbitration case on compassionate grounds, due to a family crisis that required his attention: [94][95]. Cirt posted another statement on 14 June, saying he would generally edit less from now on, and shift focus.

The same day, he began proposing article collaborations to other editors, including two arbitrators (see Canvassing, below). Cirt never stopped editing Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects: [96][97][98][99][100][101][102]

He has made approximately 2,000 edits to Wikipedia since posting his request to be excused on compassionate grounds less than two weeks ago, and shepherded Everything Tastes Better with Bacon (nominated on 6 June, the day he first mentioned the family situation) through FAC. If he had time to make 2,000 edits in under two weeks, more than all but a handful editors make here in a month, he had time to respond to an ArbCom case.

Promise made by Cirt to SlimVirgin

Cirt promised SlimVirgin on 27 May he would avoid editing in a manner that might be perceived as promotional. SlimVirgin was satisfied, but then posted to Cirt's talk page on 6 June because she felt he had not kept to it.

Promise made by Cirt to Cool Hand Luke, Roger Davies, Lar, Chase me

In February 2011, the above named admins and arbitrators discussed their concerns about Cirt's sock-hunting with him. See Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug#Comment_on_the_table, Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug#Scientology_major. The discussion ended as follows:

• "You're drawing up a list of 'correlation points', as well as bringing in old accusations against users who have been cleared by checkuser. There's a risk of unconscious bias slipping in. Please; leave this sort of thing to AC and CU - the CUs are more than capable of building up a list like this. As an uninvolved administrator (without my arb hat on), I'm asking you to stop.—User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
• " ... you really need to step away from all things Scientology. That includes sockhunting. Leave it to others.—User:Lar
• "I have stepped back, I will continue to step back, I have removed hundreds of pages from my watchlists. I have removed this page from my watchlist. I will not be active with looking into socking in this area in the future.—User:Cirt

On 19 June, Cirt prodded a single-purpose account, Startwater (talk · contribs), which made its first edit on 18 June 2011, to open a sockpuppet investigation against the same user that was discussed four months ago, without advising the SPA of the earlier discussion.

Promise made by Cirt to Lar, Scott MacDonald

Last December, after the discussion threads BLP violating use of rollback and Discretionary topic ban contemplated, Cirt posted a Note about Scientology-related editing. He said he would shift his "focus away from this topic of Scientology in general, and of BLPs within this topic in particular". His critics, User:Lar and User:Scott MacDonald, were satisfied, and even commended him for his decision. One month later, Lar and Scott MacDonald started a new discussion thread, Stepping away from Scientology articles on Cirt's talk page, because they felt he had not kept to it.

There is a pattern here. When editors raise concerns about Cirt, Cirt makes a statement, and everyone goes away satisfied. Cirt then does the opposite of what he said he would do.

In December 2010, Cirt posted to multiple admins' talk pages, using non-neutral messages, and asking for help in an arbitration enforcement request he'd initiated. One of the admins he contacted closed the AE request, forbidding Cirt's opponent, User:Delicious carbuncle, from ever criticising Cirt's editing again. [103]. That decision was overturned on appeal by User:Elen of the Roads. User:Delicious carbuncle then raised an AE request himself. As a result, Cirt was advised that a discretionary topic ban against him was contemplated, and issued two statements saying that he would step back from the topic area voluntarily. (As documented above, he did not keep to it.)

Cirt was warned about canvassing in the resulting AN/I thread, and promised not to repeat it:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Potential_WP:CANVASSING_by_User:Cirt

Soliciting help at AE with non-neutral messages:

• Future Perfect at Sunrise,
• EdJohnston,
• Elen of the Roads, further discussion,
• HelloAnnyong,
• GraemeL, prodding admin for block: [104], [105]; [106]
• Jayron32 (prodding admin for ban),
• Fisherqueen, FisherQueen.

Prodding an admin to block his opponent:

• DGG

Earlier ANI threads where Cirt gave similar undertakings not to repeat behaviour:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Philip_Baird_Shearer_-_block_review
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Behaviour_of_admin_Cirt_in_content_disputes

Cirt has posted repeated strings of almost identically worded, fulsome "Thank you" messages on friendly editors' talk pages, each followed by non-neutral, oblique prods for the contactees to become active on his behalf (in this case re WP:SEOBOMB, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing):

• 20:45, 24 June 2011 to User:Khazar
• 20:49, 24 June 2011 to User:Wnt
• 20:47, 24 June 2011 to User:Hobit
• 20:57, 24 June 2011 to User:Dcoetzee
• 20:59, 24 June 2011 to User:Ohms law
• Similar: to User:Hasteur, to User:Avanu, David Gerard and many others.

While Coren's request for arbitration was being voted on (12–19 June), and right after his 14 June statement and his asking to be excused on compassionate grounds, Cirt contacted a string of users, using almost identically worded messages—telling each of them that he has "greatly admired" their knowledge or contributions, and proposing collaboration on his Supreme Court project.

• 16:41, 14 June 2011 Newyorkbrad, [107][108]
• 16:42, 14 June 2011 Bearian,
• 16:42, 14 June 2011 Wehwalt.

He announced the project on several Wikiprojects; to another arbitrator, User:John Vandenberg [109]; and on 15 June to Legalskeptic, Eastlaw, Cdogsimmons. He contacted a third arbitrator, User:Casliber, on June 18 and June 19 for help at FAC—while there was an open arbitration request filed against him which he had asked to be excused from, so he would have time to attend to his family.

Added 30 June: I offer these samples of personal interactions and other editors' impressions "as is", for editors to review and come to their own assessment whether they are just human nature -- we all have bad days -- or whether they raise a concern that is worth discussing. Other editors here on this page, like ResidentAnthropologist and Richwales, have reported similar incidents involving themselves or others, so these don't seem to be unique.

• Scott MacDonald Scott, again
• Griswaldo
• THF
• Dbachmann
• Pieter Kuiper
• Rich Farmbrough (Cirt later apologised)
• Pelle Smith: [110][111] [112] [113][114]. (The argument with Pelle was that 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. DGG took it out. By that time Pelle had left the project.)

Added 8 July: Article concerned: Landmark Education.

Warning an IP user adding sourced material (about Giles' role in settling a dispute in Martin Luther King's family) for vandalism:

• IP edit 1 (moves the paragraph and adds sourced and cited info)
• Revert 1 (Reverted 1 edit by 76.17.108.54 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by John Carter. using TW)
• Warning 1 (General note: Nonconstructive editing on Landmark Education. using TW)
• IP edit 2 (repeats edit)
• Revert 2 (rvv.)
• Warning 2 (Warning: Vandalism. using TW)

1. WP:BLP
2. WP:COI
3. WP:CANVAS
4. WP:HONESTY
5. WP:NOTADVERTISING
6. WP:NPOV
7. WP:V

(provide diffs and links)

1. [115]
2. [116]

1. [117]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --JN466 12:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC) (I made some copyedits on 9th July, shown in this dfiff range) JN466 13:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#--SilentBlues | Talk 14:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user:Access Denied [reply]

1. Summary accurately reflects many concerns I have had for quite awhile The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am especially concerned with WP:BLP matters here. Puffing a person one "likes" and making sure that those whom one dislikes is improper, to say the least, and the editing patterns on multiple BLPs appear to show such a problem clearly. Collect (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am also concerned about the BLP issues, as well as the general puff piece writing, but even more so with the fallout when people have tried to call him on it in the recent past (and I will write more on that later).Griswaldo (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with most of the above. See my particular concerns here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. After reviewing the RFC in detail and looking over some of Cirt's edits, I'm in stunned disbelief. This conduct is not acceptable. --B (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. In many cases, it appears that Cirt exploited loopholes, in WP guidelines, to publicize people and books of limited notability. However, I thank User:Cirt for showing how these loopholes existed, before a major celebrity had a name-slur article created and linked into hundreds of other articles. Imagine if "Gaga" had been spammed with a new article promoting a disgusting new meaning, and Lady Gaga followers descended on Wikipedia to demonstrate intense outrage, in thousands of pages. These loopholes have been a systemic problem, inside Wikipedia, to allow the spamming or publicizing of WP:Fringe viewpoints in this manner. WP has had navboxes for many minor politicians, but none for uber-famous scientist Albert Einstein asked to be 2nd president of Israel (no navbox Template:Albert_Einstein), and not even an article for Einstein's major book titled "Out of My Later Years". User:Cirt has revealed a system-wide need to enact better guidelines to prioritize navbox usage including famous people, and to reduce WP:Wikibombing (SEO) of over-publicized issues. I wrote essay "WP:Overlink crisis" in February 2008, warning that navboxes were being link-spammed into thousands of articles, but now guidelines are needed to clearly note that these loopholes in over-publicizing rare topics must be closed. One day, perhaps, Cirt will be credited as one who prompted new guidelines (WP:STOPBOMB?) which stopped would-be notorious wiki-scandals, in the bud, due to improved guidelines which specify how to stop such problems quickly. Just as a dynamite bomb poses a grave risk, requiring people to quickly leave an area, where the bomb can be defused, likewise some threats of WP spam require people to be locked from pages, which can be neutralized, re-indexed into search-engines, and defused/removed from the project. It is an emergency needing a rapid response. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:11, revised 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always respected Cirt's skill at writing great Wikipedia articles. To be honest, I didn't mind too much that his articles had the effect of making Wikipedia probably the number one anti-Scientology website on the world wide web. My reasons were because his articles on Scientology appear to be acceptably balanced and NPOV, and because I don't have a lot of love for Scientology myself (this is hypocritical on my part, I admit, because I strive to promote NPOV editing in Wikipedia).

In July 2010, however, I became concerned about Cirt's efforts at what appeared to be attempts to denigrate celebrities by extensively detailing their Scientology activities in their BLPs. I mentioned it on Cirt's talk page (in that comment, I'm referring to this comment at WP:BLPN). I was really disappointed to find out in December 2010, that he was apparently still at it [118] (complete discussions: [119], [120], and [121]). Getting caught a second time appeared to elicit a promise from Cirt to knock it off.

Cirt's actions with the Santorum article appear to indicate the same pattern of behavior. I thought that Cirt had written a fair and balanced article on Savage's campaign against Santorum. Nevertheless, I was troubled when Cirt resisted the suggestion to rename the article. In response to concerns from several editors, Cirt promised to back off. As the evidence above shows, Cirt then continued to promote Savage, his campaign, and links to the campaign article by various means including DYK nominations.

Cirt is an excellent article writer. He just really needs to abandon what appears to be a tendency to succumb to the temptation to use his knowledge of how Wikipedia works to engage in activism, using Wikipedia as a promotional mechanism. If Cirt promises once again to correct the behavior in question, then he needs to stick to it this time, or I think Cirt should lose the privilege of being allowed to edit Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strongly agree with the fourth paragraph. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agreed. --JN466 00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Griswaldo (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. while I find that no one is pure, and i'm not quite ready to go as far as a formal editing restrictions, I agree with this and would advise Cirt to behave as if he has a restriction on only highest quality sourcing for blp's, and a restriction on editing articles on election year candidates. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yep. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I observed, there were two primary whistleblowers over the past year trying to call attention to problems with some of Cirt's editing- Delicious carbuncle and Jayen466. Both editors, as far as I can see, made appropriate use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. In the process, both editors were subjected to, in my opinion, unnecessary attacks, intimidation, bullying, and criticism. Instead of naming names of the alleged perpetrators here, I'll link to the related discussion threads below, and editors can observe what took place and come to their own conclusions as to who crossed the line and who didn't. Also, please note that Griswaldo, below, has presented additional evidence of this kind of thing taking place. Efforts to bully or intimidate editors who are attempting to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution system are unacceptable.

1. ANI thread
2. ANI thread concerning Delicious carbuncle
3. AE thread concerning Delicious carbuncle
4. Short-lived topic ban of Delicious carbuncle
5. ANI thread
6. ANI thread
7. AE appeal by Delicious carbuncle
8. Discussion thread on Jayen's talk page
9. Jayen 466-initiated discussion on Cirt's talk page
10. ANI thread concerning Jayen
11. Discussion on Jayen's talk page

Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. The issues as stated surrounding user Cirt's editing patterns clearly exist for all to see. Attacking the users that outline them will not resolve Cirt's editing issues. Cirt has now moved on from areas where issues with his contributions have been raised, but this is simply a red herring, now he has gone to freedom of speech and legal cases, both areas which imo with Cirt's previous editing history are likely areas that if the issues are not addressed and resolved similar disruptive and policy violating issues will occur, wherever the user goes "he remains", so simply moving on to another sector of the project will not resolve anything. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wow, I must have erased this whole affair from my memory, because otherwise I would have mentioned it below. In those threads you can seen Cirt directly appeal to admins to act on an AE request he filed against DC after an attempt to get sanctions on DC failed at AN/I--classic WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I was appalled to see how effective the strategy was.Griswaldo (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Accurate. [122] --JN466 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with this broadly. I am not convinced every one has completely clean hands as some behavior by Jayen466 and DC has been less than ideal at times regarding Cirt. however I have seen substantial amount of "Shoot the messenger" mentality when concern anyone raises concerns on Cirt.The blatant canvassing in the AE thread is most concerning. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. THF (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. The evidence is clear that Cirt has made promotional articles and edited tendentiously, and it is clear that he bullies those that call him on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kanguole 10:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the RfC opened, Jehochman has made one attempt to close it early [123] (with pejorative comments directed at the RfC's certifiers), and has removed a section from the RfC that he objected to [124] (currently posted here). Both actions were done unilaterally without first attempting discussion on the RfC talk page. Reopening the RfC has allowed at least four additional editors, as of this writing, to participate [125] [126] [127] [128], and more evidence was discovered and posted [129]. Also, at this time, there does not appear to be any policy or guideline that prohibits or discourages adding a section to an RfC inviting comment on reactions to the RfC. Omitting any discussion on prior involvement by Jehochman in Cirt's situation, I assert that Jehochman's unilateral actions were misguided and inappropriate, because at the least he should have initiated discussion on the RfC talk page before taking the actions that he did. It could be that there would have been a consensus response supporting what he wanted to do, but, he didn't bother asking. Cla68 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Though I agree with his moving of that content off this page, Jehochman should discuss dramatic actions before taking them. I think this sub-section belongs elsewhere too :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I also think that Jeh was rude to me and others who simply asked good faith questions about the process. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. While I'm not sure if posting this type of view is within convention I do agree with it's claims.Griswaldo (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political candidates Hiram Monserrate and Jeff Stone were disliked by Anonymous [130][131][132]. Cirt wrote political advertisements for their opponents Kenneth Dickson, Joel Anderson and Jose Peralta and placed them on the Wikipedia (as well as, in one case, Wikiquote) main page in the run-up to the elections concerned. [133][134][[135][136] / [137][138] / [139][140][141].

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --JN466 13:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Yep. Cirt's connection to the activist group anonymous is not in question, neither is the clear fact that he has edited and used wikipedia to support their off wiki campaigns. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seems pretty obvious to me.Griswaldo (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I agree with the five points under “Desired outcomes”: they’re required of all editors by site policy. While I don’t believe I’ve substantively breached these requirements, I concede that on occasion my actions have left me open to accusations of having done so. As both a gesture of goodwill and as a practical measure, I’ve disengaged from several areas that were raised as contentious at the recent RFAR, as I announced on that page.

I apologize to the community and to any editors I’ve inadvertently offended.

I’ve signed my agreement to several of the statements below. — Cirt (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Macwhiz additional statement

As there is now an ongoing RFAR, it seems more appropriate to respond there. I've gone ahead and done so, diff. — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on my talk page is cited above, but I do not feel that I was asked or urged to do anything. My motivation is first and foremost in maintaining the freedom of editors to write about what they are interested in.

I am disgusted by the nature of this document, which attacks someone with many thousands of edits by dredging up every little controversy and argument over a period of years and tries to reopen them and string them all together. It's a roundup of every possible issue to attack someone over minutiae.

There are charges here which should simply be dropped, not for lack of evidence, but because they are no crime. Writing up an article about something you like and submitting a DYK on it is the right of every Wikipedia editor. Merely denying the DYK because it is promotional is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500, when you consider that we're quibbling over one-line blurb with fair odds of appearing beneath a featured ad for the latest video game. How could we even contemplate acting against an editor merely for offering a DYK suggestion to the right forum, when it is up to the forum to say yes or no in any case?

Likewise, how can we contemplate accusing Cirt of "having someone blocked"? If you think the block was wrong, go complain to Ged UK (who applied it) on his talk page like anyone else.

Some of the most damning allegations regarded non-neutrality in the handling of articles about living persons. For example, yes, as indicated above, Cirt removed a claim that Corbin Fisher sued 40,000 people. I see it's since come back in the article. Problem: as said in the talk page, he didn't actually sue them, at least not yet. And the source doesn't say he sued them. A person would be more likely to be accused of high crimes and misdemeanors for adding this text than removing it - if this were an article about a Republican candidate, this text would have been deleted within 3 minutes. Another article is criticized as being too positive because he didn't add a reference from the New York Daily News saying someone mishandled $500,000. As someone said below, AYFKM? Until we roll back the draconian BLP policy and encourage more direct reporting of sources, it's very hard to accuse someone of overt bias for leaving anything out of a BLP. (After all, it trumps consensus, NPOV, and common sense...) Certainly there are enough people making a business of taking stuff out, like over at "santorum", without sanction.

I cannot track all of the allegations, as some point to deleted edits, "secret" ArbCom emails, and off-site conspiracies I can't be bothered to read. I feel that so many of the core allegations are wrong or wrong-headed that I am far more willing to believe that the accusers are acting out of bias and/or bad faith than that Cirt is doing so. I think that this entire proceeding should be dismissed, in full; individual issues about sources and links can be pursued in their appropriate forums.

(added after endorsments 2-4): What JN466 characterizes in the discussion page as one of the most serious allegations, the WP:BLPSPS issue, I also find uncompelling. BLPSPS prohibits using self-published documents as sources for claims about third parties, and says to use caution using them as external links with the proviso that other policies prevail. But YouTube videos that have been released to Wikimedia Commons, which show the most well-known interview with a subject, were included there as files, just like an image. It is not established policy that Wikipedia should suppress a well-known interview of a person like Aaron Saxton in his own article just because he talks about someone else. There is a range of opinion on BLP, with Off2riorob on one end and me on the other, and the mere fact that he removed the link to a video doesn't mean that Cirt broke policy or should be sanctioned for posting it - especially considering that BLP was less malignant back in 2009.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Wnt (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. LadyofShalott 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Quigley (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) – You're perfectly right about BLPs. The BLP is a Catch-22 now; you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's hard to distinguish puffery from erring on the side of positive to avoid accusations of BLP violations.[reply]
5.  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. JamesMLane t c 04:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hobit (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Orderinchaos 17:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC) And it continues. Sigh get over it people and return to writing content.[reply]
12. Sadads (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Cardamon (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Jusdafax 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. -Atmoz (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. -- ۩ Mask 10:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the disputes alluded to in this RfC are so far-flung that only Cirt and those who have been hounding him for years have the resources to make a fully-informed reply. However, if the recent spat over the santorum neologism is any indication, then Cirt's behavior has been exceedingly deferential, rule-bound, and accomodating, while his accusers have made extraordinary leaps of bad faith in everything that he does.

Jayen466 and Cla68 represent a faction that is militantly opposed to the existence of the article formerly known as "santorum (neologism)", an article that has long survived three AfDs, and has consistently shot down attempts to stub, rename, or otherwise mutilate its contents by an overwhelming majority of editors. Press reports about a subject bring many editors old and new to Wikipedia articles with renewed interest and reliable sources. Cirt's extra motivation to expand the article, as indicated in his Arbcom-l interrogation by SlimVirgin, was to protect the article from another AfD. His was a common and honest motivation for articles so frequently attacked.

Cirt's "promise" to SlimVirgin that he would avoid editing in a manner "in the manner that [she] describe[s]" was not an admission of wrongdoing. It was a defeated response to those who had pursued his work with personal hostility and outlandish conspiracy theories to try to ascribe sinister motives to Cirt's editing. From BLPN, to Jimbo's talk page, to the countless other places where the certifiers have caused the disruption they now blame on Cirt, Cirt's style has been opposite to the allegations. Without legitimate threats hanging over his head, he has given significant concessions to his pursuers on areas where he has built substantial connections; where other users have refuted allegations against him and impugned on the motives of the agitating editors, he has tried to accomodate their ever-growing demands.

SlimVirgin, Coren, and others' repeated overriding of community consensus on santorum by invoking BLP, Arbcom, and other esoteric authorities has successfully driven away common content-driven editors from the developing firestorm. As a result, few of us who have interacted with Cirt without the obsessively demonizing lens of the RFC/U certifiers are left to testify to his goodwill. Cirt is being pressed to prove his purity to a standard that few human beings could endure with sanity intact. From religion to restaurants to politicians, the RFC/U certifiers are presenting scattershot "concerns" and insinuations that add up to no conclusive evidence of promotion of any real life entity except Cirt's own bona-fide interests.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Quigley (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. "defeated response" and "significant concession": Yes, Cirt seems keen to disengage from controversy generally; understandably so after years of it, as you say. It appears that this tendency - that some might call "being nice" or "not being a dick" - is being used against him, provoking his withdrawal from ever more areas of the encyclopedia. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3.  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gamaliel (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agreed. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Orderinchaos 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. A little strong of a position, but generally agree with most of the points, Sadads (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Jusdafax 17:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. œ^™ 03:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. R. Baley (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
17. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. I think some of the language is overblown, but I do agree that there are some elements of boomerang here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for me to know what to "endorse" here, as I see some problematic behavior here and also what seem like overreaches by the RfC author (such as the bacon example). So let me try to stake out a more middlish ground on this already crowded page and do a very subjective sorting of wheat and chaff.

The State Senate examples above are major issues to me; it's hard to see those as anything but POV-pushing and promotion, and in the serious area of current elections. I'm surprised so many responses here aren't addressing these.

While I'm glad on the balance that Cirt expanded our coverage of Dan Savage topics, including the Santorum (neologism) article, the way that he did, his creation of not one, but three templates centering on that article--and an addition to a fourth--strikes me as the point where his actions could be reasonably interpreted as part of the SEO attack (regardless of Cirt's actual intent). I'm newer to the Wiki than many here, but my experience already suggested that the creation of three new templates per article is not standard practice. His interactions with Jayen re: the dictionary passage in question also appear to show less-than-perfect faith in dealing with another editor.

As for the rest, the deletion of the sourced material from Corbin Fisher under an inaccurate edit summary is definitely an error in editing or in judgment, but the sort of mistake I could imagine making myself every 50,000 edits or so. The Scientology sources appear to be borderline for legitimate use of self-published sources, rather than clear violations. The restaurant example seems both minor and borderline at worst. Some of the allegations of canvassing also appear thin to me. To pick my name from the list as an obvious example, it's true that Cirt thanked me for a series of comments I had left at WP:SEOBOMB four hours before [142], but I didn't see his message as any more canvassing than I did when Jayen reached out to persuade me individually following one of my comments at RfAR [143]; Cirt hardly needed to lobby me to join a debate I was already up to my neck in--or in the case of the WP:SEOBOMB MfD, a debate that wouldn't be created until several hours later.

In short, I feel this RfC/U raises important points, even if it overreaches in many particulars. I'm willing to sign off on the idea that Cirt has a checkered history with election-related promotion and should avoid or be very careful with NPOV on these topics in the future. I'd also add, though, (as so many here have, regardless of their standing on the "Cirt spectrum") that we're still very lucky to have Cirt's editing on the balance, given the staggering amount of quality content he's created. I hope he can continue to build on these many strengths and avoid the flaws identified above. Khazar (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. Khazar (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I believe this is a balanced assessment. — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broadly. --JN466 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. If I were to summarize the content RFC now this would probably be accurate. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Particularly as this is a very neutral look at the issue, assumes good faith, and seeks to offer constructive criticism. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. This summarizes my view best, particularly the opening line: "I see some problematic behavior here and also what seem like overreaches by the RfC author". Qrsdogg (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sounds about right. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd drop a note to discuss an interaction I had with Cirt that I'm beginning to wonder about, given this surprising RFC. In October 2010 I was reading about the movie Battlefield Earth when I noticed a rather odd citation to a person/book that I'd never heard of. When I found the diff I saw that it was Cirt that made the change, and I created a talk page entry for, and then asked him about. He said that it was "part of commentary, nothing more than that" but I thought that was a strange and rather random addition to the article. When I googled the author/book in question, I found (IIRC) one or two results, one of which was an Amazon page where there were only 2 comments, both complimentary, and one by a person with the same name and location as the author. The other used very similar language and an anonymous name whose only review was for the book in question. Cirt was very respectful to me in dealing with this, and I certainly do not mean to imply any wrongdoing where there is none, but it does make me wonder. I've never commented on an RFC before, apologies if I've done anything wrong.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LuftWaffle0 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC) as author[reply]
2. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC) While I agree that this was a troublesome edit, it is also a rather old one. However, it is an example of the sort of thing that Cirt does needs to watch out for and avoid doing. It's a weak source, and let's face it, one doesn't need to resort to weak sources to find bad reviews of Battlefield Earth. [144] // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked around and to some slight degree with Cirt on-wiki, with some communications off-wiki over the last few years, mostly related to Cirt asking for independent administrator review of admin actions or other editor review of articles / article improvements.

I think I understand where the JN and Cla are coming from here, but in my opinion, the RFC is an overreaction. Cirt has opinions on some issues which are visible in editing, and has made mistakes. But Cirt has also been consistently responsive to constructive criticism and complaints, has always (when I was paying attention) made good efforts to observe the pillars, NPOV, RS and V, etc. Cirt's goals here are to build a better encyclopedia.

We have many users who on many topics are much more activist or outspoken, much less attentive to NPOV and the other policies. We don't ask people to leave their opinions at the door. We ask that you participate in community discussions and feedback, follow the policies, and be here to build an encyclopedia. Cirt as a rule is all of those things. Some valid criticism over recent events aside, there is not a widespread problem here needing intervention. If some people are concerned enough to want to continue to monitor, that seems reasonable, but no action seems called for, in my opinion.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC) as author[reply]
2. Agree strongly with this. Cirt is here to build an encyclopedia, and Cirt has also been willing to own up to his own mistakes and take advice on being a better editor. If only everyone involved in this RFC had the same attitude! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users signing other sections (i.e. signing "Statement of the dispute" as a certifier, or "Response" as the subject) should not edit the "Outside views" section except to endorse any view(s) below.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

Anent a comment made on my UT page - I did not intend in any way to suggest that Cirt created the neologism which was one example of the BLP issues raised. I trust no one inferred such from my comments. This addition is, moreover, not part of my comments to agree or disagree with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Collect (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. --JN466 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Hits all the main points. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree with everything except the part about a scatalogical neologism falling under BLP. I'm reserving judgement on that for now. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Griswaldo (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. I agree, especially w/r/t Cirt's editing activity after requesting to be excused from the arbitration case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree generally. Some individual points are not significant, but the promotional pattern certainly is. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. The whole thing is about pattern of promotion, due to the prolific nature of Cirt's contributions. If the editor were as prolific as I am, it would not matter at all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kanguole 10:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Epbr123 (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the allegations above:

• The promotional tone of particular articles. Is this a problem that Cirt should address? Certainly. It is a very common problem. I've seen it many, many times in student papers I've graded. People are inundated with advertising and promotional copy and their writing sometimes unconsciously reflects that, especially if the source material they are working with is promotional as well. I fail to see how this is "evidence" of "loyalty to outside causes", however. The examples of politicians cited include both Democrats and Republicans. What cause is Cirt supposed to be promoting here? Bipartisanship? Or are we alleging that he is a paid editor for hire?
• Creation of non-notable articles to promote anti-Scientology. If creating an article on some obscure restaurant is a crime, we're all guilty. Even Jimbo, whose complaint in the AFD is cited above, has done it. Remember the Mzoli's Meats controversy? Plenty of people in the AFD thought that Cirt's article was sufficiently sourced and notable. Are they secretly promoting anti-Scientology too?
• Editing and expansion of articles related to Dan Savage. Isn't that what we're supposed to do here? Why is this even an issue?
• Too many DYK submissions on the same topic. I think this is a problem to address with the DYK rules, not a problem with anything Cirt did. People are going to produce/expand multiple articles on similar topics because that's what they're interested in and that's what they've researched. DYK recently featured multiple articles by me on female mathematicians and Yale graduates. Am I now an "activist" for those topics?
• Inappropriate sources. Many sources are mentioned above as if they are so obviously inappropriate that it is mindboggling. For example, a self-published YouTube clip from Aaron Saxton is cited as inappropriate. But what's wrong with that? He's talking about himself and his views. It's long been established that self-published sources by people are acceptable in that context. If you don't like it, campaign to change the policy.
• Manipulation of sources. Cirt wrote in Everything Tastes Better with Bacon "Several recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004". But his accusers counter: "The number of recipes included in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004 is two." Are you fucking kidding me? You should send me a check for the time I wasted reading that.

If you want to address whatever issues you have with Cirt's editing, I support that. But what I see here is an attempt to spin a whole bunch of non-issues and minor complaints into a pattern of nefarious behavior that is not backed by any evidence. Whatever happened to AGF? Why are we trying to turn positive things like creating and expanding articles into negatives? Every day there's some ankle biter trying to accuse me of this motive or that agenda because I made an edit he didn't like. It's frustrating to see established editors doing the same to an editor who overall does quality work. There's plenty of political ideologues who openly push a political agenda here on Wikipedia and edit nothing but political articles. I don't see evidence here that Cirt is one of them, and it seems that we're trying to punish him with nothing but a bunch of imagined connections and circumstantial evidence while leaving flagrant offenders unmolested.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree. The fact that the creator of this RFCU has been heavily criticised for "Wikihounding" Cirt [145] does not fill me with confidence, either. This strikes me as just more of the same. As a side note, is it appropriate to post notices about this RfC/U to numerous user talk pages? [146] Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed. If this isn't pointy behavior, I don't know what is. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree per my statement above. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Why are we trying to turn positive things like creating and expanding articles into negatives?" Exactly. In terms of writing encyclopedic text, based on large numbers of third-party sources, and submitting it to review processes, Cirt is, in my experience, an exemplary editor. The hard time Cirt's getting (to say the least) potentially sends a strong and worrying signal to editors who are thinking of creating and improving articles on controversial topics. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agreed. I have to say the "you should send me a check" part got me giggling. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree, except that I long since gave up hope of getting a check for reading meritless arguments on Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 06:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agreed. This complaint is wholly without merit. Raul654 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Orderinchaos 17:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Sadads (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Cardamon (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Jusdafax 17:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. especially the last bullet. -Atmoz (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Echoing the above, the last bullet sums it up well. -- ۩ Mask 10:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Count Iblis (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Again, some of the language here is stronger than is necessary, but I want to register my view that much of the "evidence" presented in this RfC/U turns out, when I examine it closely, to be a matter of throwing everything against the wall and seeing if anything sticks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Cirt appears to write well-researched articles, and the deficiencies of his editing are easily remediable. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Cirt's choices in editing BLPs may need review, much of this RfC/U seems to be a witch-hunt. It looks to me like a handful of editors have made a hobby of finding issue with Cirt's behavior, to the point of stretching the truth to fit a predetermined point of view.

For example, it's implied that the Corbin Fisher article was a promotional piece. Having read the full contents of the leaked conversation between Cirt, SlimVirgin, and Shell Kinney, I did not get this impression. Cirt said that he had been in contact with Marc Randazza to get a photo permission, and Randazza suggested that Fisher would be a good subject for an article. There's no evidence of any favors changing hands, no evidence of payment, no evidence of anything other than a suggestion. While Cirt may have produced an imbalanced article from that suggestion, there's no evidence that this was the result of intentional outside interference rather than just a lack of balance in the editing. In the leaked emails, I found SV to come off as intensively combative, and I formed the opinion that she was not interested in considering alternative explanations. It seems to me that this RfC/U is laden with the same prejudice against Cirt.

Regarding Cirt's refusal to divulge his conversation: Cirt had been informed by a practicing attorney that said attorney did not wish the conversation to be divulged. It doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable to me that one would err on the side of caution and refuse to divulge the conversation in such a case. Neither SV nor Shell had the legal right to require Cirt to divulge conversations with a third party, nor to expect Cirt to expose himself to potential legal action by doing so against the express wishes of the other conversant.

As for the Dickson/Anderson claims: The RfC/U attempts to smear Cirt by associating him with the Anonymous forums, by quoting an anonymous third party as saying that they helped Cirt obtain photos. The quote is truncated; the poster actually said: "I helped Cirt acquire some photos of politicians for the Jeff Stone/campaign articles. It's a bitch. You have to have the photo provider sign some thing stating permission to use the image, and copyright claims acknowledged. Two politicians didn't even bother to respond, so no pix for them." In context, "helped" does not mean "I went with Cirt to go take photos"; it means "I assisted Cirt in finding the right person to obtain clearances from". That's hardly nefarious. What's more, it ignores the context of the discussion; another poster had said a few messages earlier "Cirt is one of us. He's also ethical enough to put the quality of the encyclopaedia before his POV." Cirt, as far as I can tell, is not an active poster to the forum in question, and I have no reason to believe he's a member. The conversation seems to discuss Cirt as an uninvolved third party that these other people believe is sympathetic to their cause... but one that is explicitly called out as not biased. However, the proponents of this RfC/U are using those comments out of context to support a very different view of Cirt.

Then there's the whole santorum witch hunt, in which we are expected to believe that it is unreasonable for an article's editing to become sharply more active following widespread media coverage of the article's topic. The RfC/U claims that Cirt edited Santorum (neologism) "following press reports that Rick Santorum might be running for president". It singularly fails to mention that those edits occurred the day after Jon Stewart made santorum one of Google's most-searched terms because of Savage's campaign. [147] By ignoring the sudden newfound relevance of the term to a significant subset of our readers, the proponents of this RfC/U paint Cirt's additions as being political activism. It also glosses over the fact that the article's abrupt reduction in size was the result of an edit made by SV without prior consensus, after her RFC attempt to garner support for an even more drastic change to the article was largely rebuffed by the community (which makes the statement "Cirt's unilateral editing of the... article caused significant disruption" rather precious).

Plus there's the RfC/U's attempt to besmirch Cirt for seeking support regarding WP:SEOBOMB, an essay written by this RfC/U's original nominator that, in its original version, was a thinly-disguised polemic against Cirt. Said essay is up for deletion [148] with many editors finding it to be an attack page.

It is one thing to say "there is a lot of circumstantial evidence here" in an argument like this. But that's when the circumstantial evidence is neutral. The "circumstantial evidence" provided here in an attempt to show a "pattern" of dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, promotion, and assorted improprieties is not neutral; it's rife with omissions, point-of-view slanting, assumptions of bad faith, and presumption that the most dastardly alternative must be the truth.

So, although I do believe that there are certain editing choices that Cirt makes that need to be addressed, it is very difficult for me to take this RfC/U seriously, because it seems to me that it does not originate in good faith. It seeks to tar Cirt with every brush available, as well as a few feather dusters and the odd mangy dead pigeon pressed into service as a mop. I find that sickening on general principles. I find it literally repulsive—these witch hunts make me less interested in participating in Wikipedia—and so I cannot support it as it stands. Lose the hyperbole and the POV-pushing, the unsupported insinuations, and the general McCarthyism, and there would be something to discuss here... but no, not like this.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Absolutely.— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Noting the timing of the appearance of the word on The Daily Show should really put an end to any arguments of bad faith on Cirt's part in editing that particular article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Very much so. Good catch on the selective quotation of the anonymous Dickson/Anderson post - that is an absolutely shameful piece of (I presume deliberate) misrepresentation. Prioryman (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I haven't verified the bits about Jon Stewart and the Anonymous forum, but I trust Macwhiz is as right about that as with everything else here. Wnt (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not sure I agree with the part about SV but endorse the rest of this comment. I wish I had read this one before I made mine, since if I had I probably would not have bothered. Says a lot of the same points a fair bit better than I did. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree with special emphasis towards the fact that Cirt's editing on santorum was in line with community consensus, and that it was his opponents' editing that was unilateral and arguably disruptive. Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agreed that this is feeling fairly witch-hunty. I'm not sure the degree to which it's appropriate to reference the leaked ArbCom emails, but there was one conversation between SV, Cirt, and Shell that went over many of these allegations, none of which were born out. Creating a lot of articles on a particular subject is not outlawed, and it conforms to Cirt's general editing pattern in uncontroversial areas. I didn't read the Corbin Fisher article as promotional. It may not have been NPOV, but most new articles aren't, as they're generally written by people who care about the subject and hold a view on way or the other. Liking porn is not a crime. If the article was made more neutral later, then what are we arguing about? That's what we do. Similarly, creating an article by request is perfectly fine so long as the article itself is good. As for Santorum, well, that got sorted out. I didn't see Cirt's involvement there as being inappropriate, at least not to the degree that would spark an RFC/U. This seems like a few people who don't like Cirt making a big stink about very little. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Every word of this hits the mark. While some of Cirt's choices aren't what I would have done in the same situation, there should be more attention on why some users are so very keen to find a conspiracy. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. "Witch hunt," fishing expedition, call it what you will. I'm only here because I was surprised to see an admin name that I associate with fair-mindedness and overall competence at RFC and, having read through the material supplied, I am left with the impression Cirt is a well-intentioned and utterly fallible human editor of Wikipedia. I'm sure compiling a patchwork quilt of mistakes made by any editor on Wikipedia would make for some very lurid reading at an RfC (I have ~1/10th the edits of Cirt and probably twice as many blunders), but I'm equally sure that that's missing the point. An RFC about this RFC might be more warranted than this RFC. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agreed. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Agree, except that SlimVirgin's edit of what's currently at Campaign for "santorum" neologism wasn't completely unilateral. JamesMLane t c 08:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. This is the view closest to my own (and I agree with most of the comments above, too.) I once edited Brendan Nelson, a key Australian politician, in a five-hour stretch upon hearing a story about him on the radio that was likely to draw hundreds of people to the page - the article was WP:RECENTish before my intervention, and you wouldn't be able to tell my political persuasion from the edits I made to it. Asking people not to improve the encyclopaedia on high-visibility topics of key interest to readers - nuts. Orderinchaos 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Sadads (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. elektrikSHOOS 18:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. R. Baley (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. -- ۩ Mask 10:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. And why is WP:McCarthyism still a redlink? Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Cbl62 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that many endorsers have qualms about this part of my statement: "It also glosses over the fact that the article's abrupt reduction in size was the result of an edit made by SV without prior consensus, after her RFC attempt to garner support for an even more drastic change to the article was largely rebuffed by the community (which makes the statement "Cirt's unilateral editing of the... article caused significant disruption" rather precious)."

The relevant discussion is now archived: [149] At 11:12 a.m. EDT on June 21, SV notified the article's talk page that she had created a draft rewrite. Three people supported adopting the rewrite in the 75 minutes following her comment. At 12:49 p.m. EDT, just over an hour and a half after her first comment, SV copied her rewrite over the article.

While I didn't comment at the time, I am one of those who felt that the draft should have stayed in a sandbox for a more reasonable period of time, at least until that evening, so that editors without ready access could look, comment, and work on it collaboratively. This would have been more collegial. Although three people supported the draft, and five people were supportive when SV first mentioned doing a rewrite, those numbers are miniscule compared to the 138+ editors that participated in the RFC. If even a fraction of those editors continued to follow the discussion, then it's hard to claim that there was consensus. There's no WP:DEADLINE; it could have waited a few hours to build a true consensus. Doing so would have avoided drama and angst on an already incendiary topic.

This RfC/U contains allegations that Cirt edits too quickly, edits from a strong viewpoint, and makes improper use of sources by quoting them selectively in a way that makes them seem to say something they don't. However, among those supporting that view, I see people making edits too quickly, making edits based on a strongly-held personal viewpoint, and—as demonstrated in my previous comments—quoting things selectively to make them say something they don't. I am put in mind of the common-law doctrine of unclean hands, which says a plaintiff isn't entitled to a remedy for a defendant's unethical behavior when the plaintiff is acting unethically themselves.

So, why I put that line in there: The RfC/U asserts that "Cirt's unilateral editing of the... article caused significant disruption". As far as I can tell, "Cirt's unilateral editing" refers to Cirt undertaking to expand the article considerably from various sources a day after the topic gained newfound notoriety thanks to Jon Stewart. I find the characterization of that work as "unilateral" to be a misuse of the term and unfair to Cirt. I have expanded an article many-fold in the space of a few days myself, and I have seen others do it, and I've never before heard someone condemned simply because of the scope of material added over a span of time. (It seems like I keep reading variations on "he writes well, but too quickly, it's just not right," which I admit to finding difficult to fathom.) In fact, for someone acting "unilaterally"; Cirt seems to have notified a lot of noticeboards about the discussion going on on May 13. [150] (Wait, is it unilateral if you do it yourself and tell no one, but canvassing if you do it yourself and ask others to comment? I'm confused.)

On the other hand, we have SV, who proposed the failed RFC for the santorum article, reducing the article to less than a quarter of its previous size in just one edit, made after the proposed sweeping change was approved by a consensus of three out of the 138+ editors viewing the page in the previous month. The RfC/U refers to that as "Following Cirt's departure from the article, it is now, after community-based editing, back from over 5,000 to under 1,500 words." It was not community-based. It was a fait accompli by SV. Whether or not SV's draft improved the article is not the point for this discussion; the point is that if Cirt had done what SV did, I have no doubt it would be listed in this RfC/U as further evidence of his inappropriate editing. I dislike such double standards.

Reclarification after endorsements 1–4, Olive's and SV's responses: To be perfectly clear, I am not criticizing what SV did by tackling the rewrite. I appreciate that redrafting the article was a thankless job. If I had been given the opportunity to review it before it was incorporated to the main article, I would have suggested a few tweaks, but mostly supported it. But the speed with which the draft went live was not ideal given the circumstances (again, not what but how), and I especially criticize how this RfC/U characterizes the rewrite. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) as author.[reply]
2. Very troubling behavior, and perhaps an indication that this fixation on Cirt's behavior on santorum is a tactical diversion from the real disruption on that article. Quigley (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Orderinchaos 06:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. And the junk just below (clarification added after others's refactoring made it unclear: I mean SV's sarcasm) isn't exactly helpful either William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Unfortunately, my efforts on the talk page of that article did not turn up a good consensus against the SlimVirgin rewrite, as much as I wish they would. I think Wikipedia articles are done best when they scrape together all the available facts and allow readers to seriously understand the full range of opinion - not when they give a few token references to "give people the flavor" of the topic. But the relevance here is only that bold editing has been done by both sides. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Even if the edit were an improvement, it was rather rapid. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin doesn't have Cirt's history which is not just about unilateral editing to say the least. I supported her rewrite as did a few others who had been active in the discussion. I did withdraw from the discussion because it was a nasty mess. SV has a reputaion as one of the finest article writers on Wikipedia so having her offer to take on this nasty business which she did with consent and support of editors was generous. Its absurd to equate SV's generous offer/action with the extensive concerns documented here on Cirt's behaviour.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. (olive (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
2. --JN466 17:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. --SPhilbrickT 23:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. SlimVirgin's trimming rewrite was the best thing that happened to that article since user Cirt touched it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on talk on June 20 whether I should rewrite the santorum article to make it shorter and clearer. Four people said yes. I reported on June 21 that I had finished the draft. Three people said to add it to the article. I did that (see here) with the comment: "I'm going offline now, so I'll add it to the article for now, and if it's reverted we can continue discussing and trying to gain consensus for it." After that, another 11 people said they supported the new version. See here and here.

The way to deal with that "very troubling behavior" is simple—and I am the chief beneficiary of the solution!

I hereby undertake never ever ever ever ever again to spend hours of my own time rewriting a Wikipedia article I have zero interest in, for the purpose of reducing a BLP problem, resolving a festering dispute, or making the article easier to read. Voilà!

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Although it would be very much to Wikipedia's detriment if Slim sticks to what she undertakes above. Describing her changes as "unilateral" is plain inaccurate. She asked beforehand on the talk page if people would like her to rewrite the article, people said "Yes please", and active talk page consensus was that her version was a vast improvement. --JN466 17:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. If any one can read Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism/Archive 7#State of the article with that interpretation, then I am highly concerned about their interpretations on other evidence here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. SV added her rewrite, as she had flagged, and as she had a right to. Flatterworld reverted within 3 minutes, as he had a right to. An edit war ensued not involving SV. An uninvolved admin protected the page on the wrong version. Subsequent discussion has shown the new version to be an improvement that needed further work. Not "very troubling behavior." Laudable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Indeed.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorse this fully. SV was completely in the right here, Flatterworld had no right at all to simply blindly revert without discussion, and there is no "wrong version". Tarc (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Slim's re-write was definitely the kind of editing that we need here. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. SV acted properly AFAICT. Collect (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. SV - full power to SV for having enough NPOV authority to do that, it was so needed - I gave up after one of my edits was reverted without comment and I went to their userpage and they self identified as a LGBT Democrat, I laughed out loud. - that the direct result of divisive content that user Cirt created, the disruption of the wiki was some of the worst I have seen in two and a half years here. I disagree with that claim that a user writes a lot of quality content so we should support them even if they disrupt and use the site for their own benefit - The wiki will get written soon enough without such contributors and in a more balanced NPOV way. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Hey SlimVirgin - Please don't make good on your suggestion. Your rewrite was the best thing that could have happened to this article, and I'm saying this as a staunch supporter of marriage equality. Beautifully crafted and well-balanced. Girl got mad skills! --DracoEssentialis (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing why Cirt edited in this fashion, as I don't believe it's possible for us to gather sufficient evidence to know what was in Cirt's head at the time with certainty, I think that the following instances of how Cirt edited are difficult to justify and explain under Wikipedia's rules:

• While editing the Joel Anderson article, Cirt included a great many quotations describing Anderson favorably in the context of a political campaign, but neglected to include any sufficient and readily available information on a campaign-finance violation Anderson committed to avoid the appearance of undue emphasis. That violation was well-documented in reliable sources and well within the bounds of WP:WELLKNOWN. Its omission was a NPOV violation.
• The nature of Cirt's edits to the Dickson, Anderson, Peralta, and Monserrate articles is inconsistent with NPOV. Taken as a whole, Cirt's edits to these articles appear to push a certain point of view against Scientology-related candidates. Given Cirt's previous issues with Scientology-related editing, this pattern of editing is troubling.
• Cirt occasionally quotes sources in a way that may be technically correct, but may mislead a reader because there isn't sufficient context to accurately characterize the source.
• Cirt's use of self-published YouTube videos that may contain self-published statements about third parties is questionable under WP:BLP.
• Cirt is a prolific DYK contributor, but some articles Cirt has nominated for DYK appear to have been expanded to meet the DYK criteria by means of adding puffery.
• When dealing with edits that Cirt disagrees with, Cirt tends to be very concise in dealing with other editors, which may come off as defensive or tendentious.

To prevent future discord, I suggest that Cirt:

• Ensure a neutral POV in articles edited by consciously trying to find and include material that refutes Cirt's preferred point of view, especially on contentious subjects (while maintaining all applicable policies for content inclusion);
• Take care to avoid editing multiple articles within a topic in such a way that slants Wikipedia's coverage of the topic away from neutral;
• Avoid editing articles in topics where Cirt has a strong personal point-of-view, especially where it may be difficult to keep that POV from seeping into the edits;
• Ensure that quotations from sources include sufficient context so that the reader can understand the quote in the way the source presented it, possibly by asking other editors to point out possible misconceptions;
• Avoid using self-published YouTube videos as sources if they refer to any third person;
• Stop expanding an article when it has reached its organic limits, even if that leaves it short of the DYK expansion criterion;
• Engage other editors with more care, adopting a helpful attitude and explaining more fully why an edit is objectionable, either with an explanatory reference to policy or by clearly articulating Cirt's feelings on borderline cases.

This isn't intended to be an exhaustive list of criticisms and suggested remedies, but I think it's a good start.

Corrected characterization of Anderson campaign-finance material per Jayen's note at my talk page after endorsements 1–5. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Specifically with emphasis on BLPs in any area, and avoidance of YouTube et al as sources therein. WP:PIECE may be of use. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I hope Cirt embraces these suggestions, but he also needs to acknowledge which, if any, of the certifiers' complaints he agrees with. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per both Collect and Anthonyhcole as well as Macwhiz.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Good points. As for self-published YouTube videos, they should neither be used as sources nor embedded in articles if they make contentious statements about third parties. --JN466 20:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Well stated. -- Khazar (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Good statement of what is needed going forward, and more specific and measurable than what is requested in the opening post of the RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are possibly some valid issues in the complaint. Cirt isn't a perfect editor. But most of it is simply overblown. First, people need to realize that Cirt has a very large number of contributions. He is one of the most productive editors on the project in terms of FAs and DYKs and has done a large amount of work on other articles as well. It should not in that context be surprising if some edits in the large number are suboptimal. Even with perfect intentions and a completely memorized policy a few bad edits will likely occur. That's not to minimize the fact that there are real concerns here, the most serious of which seem to be the problem of voluntarily agreeing to stay away from topics and then not keeping with them.

However, overall, I have a lot of trouble seeing there being enough for an RfC. No single aspect of this raises to that high a level. I find some of the claims being made by the initial RfC as simply confusing. For example, Cirt is acused of both making promotional edits to various conservative politicians. At the same time, he's been acused of attacking Rick Santorum, a right-wing politician, and of promoting Dan Savage, a left-wing gay columnist. The overall attempt to paint a systematic pattern here if anything does the exact opposite. Unless Cirt has some of the most schizophrenic and idiosyncratic politics, the more naive explanation is that these are a few less than ideal edits which don't really amount to any POV being pushed. If there is a POV here, I'd like to hear a coherent explanation of what it is. Right now, I'm not seeing it. There's some claim being made that this is about Cirt's admitted anti-scientology POV. While some of the examples in question seem to be impacted by that (the Daryl Wine and Bar Restaurant seems to be the most obvious), there seems to be a real difficulty in some of the other claims seem to be extremely weak.

Now, let's look at the Youtube video claims. Again, some of these claims are valid. And there are real issues. However, they've been greatly overblown. Note that most of the claimed problematic Youtube videos did not involve any living people at all. I find it particularly interesting that Jayen listed many of these videos in his preparation page, and neither he nor Scott felt a need to remove them from mainspace. If they think that they constituted a BLP problem they should have been removed first. Why didn't they? For the simple reason that the videos in question were not BLP problems, although they may suboptimal for inclusion on Wikipedia. Still others of the videos listed are clearly things that both don't create any BLP problem and clearly add to the articles. The most obvious example is the "Anonymous" video directed towards the Church of Scientology. The video does not mention any names so there's no BLP issue. And the video itself has been discussed by reliable sources. Including the video here is thus fairly natural.

The claims made about misrepresentation of sources also has problems. Are we now considering a serious misrepresentation of sources if someone uses "several" to mean two? About an article about how to cook with bacon? Seriously? At this point I have to wonder if that section by itself sinks this entire RfC into triviality.

Another issue that seems be misrepresented in the central RfC is Cirt's pleading about family issues. His point in question wasn't that he was not going to edit at all. But rather that during a stressful family time, he didn't want to engage in stressful editing like an RfAr. This seems to be perfectly normal. Not too long ago, a close relative of mine had to go in for surgery on short notice. During that time, I didn't reduce my editing but did avoid editing potentially stressful topics. Cirt seems to have done exactly the same thing. The claims about canvassing, like most of the claims here, also have some validity but the general problem is being grossly exaggerated. The editors that Cirt contacted about his Supreme Court project are people who have edited in that area in the past. Newyorkbrad for example is a lawyer by profession and most of his editing has focused on legal topics. I don't know in what universe telling relevant editors that one wants to work with them became "canvassing".

The claims about the Santorum edits also are lacking. As observed on the talk page of this RfC, the timing reflects Jon Stewart's urging of people to Google the term more than anything else, and many of Cirt's edits were clear improvements to the article.

So what do we have overall? There are issues here. Some are more serious than others. But given how much material is being thrown at Cirt it seems more like an attempt to throw mud and see what sticks. That's not helpful or productive. And it does make me worry quite a bit that part of this is connected to Jayen's prior history with Cirt, since that user has a long history of going after Cirt.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree, but with reservations towards "agreeing to stay away from topics and then not keeping with them". The "agreements" that Cirt acceded to were impossibly arbitrary and subjective. How could you hold someone to a good-faith withdrawal from topics with "political overtones", especially, as I pointed out in my view above, when Cirt's accusers have made such stretches as to connect Scientology with santorum? Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. There's a surreal flavour to some of the allegations being made, and your middle paragraphs capture it. How, without POV-pushing, can someone complain about the presence of the widely-covered Anonymous "message to Scientology" video in mainspace? MartinPoulter (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Gamaliel (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. This summary is broadly how I see it. Mountains being made out of molehills and probably for a reason. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agreed. — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Somewhat. Not all of us get it right all of the time. I've ended up in some major fights on the pedia, but in parts of it which attract next to no attention. Some of the claims being made about Cirt and some of the things being asked of him are simply weird, in the sense that if they were more widely applied on principle, they would make editing on the encyclopaedia unworkable. Orderinchaos 17:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree completely with the statement, and agree with Orderinchaos's thoughts on this, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mostly agree, but share Quigley's concerns, and wholeheartedly endorse Orderinchaos's comment. I myself have found myself wondering, if I tried to avoid all the charges leveled at Cirt here and in other fora, would there be anything at all I could actually do on Wikipedia? ...and then wondering if that's the point... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cardamon (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Sam Blacketer says it well: "Mountains being made out of molehills and probably for a reason." -Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- ۩ Mask 10:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Agreed. Prioryman (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. R. Baley (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what section I should be in given what I have to say, so if someone outside this dispute wishes to move this comment, please feel free. In any case, I have two points to make.

First, I find that the attacks on Cirt have been much worse than anything I can see assembled above. Creating an essay as a personal attack was uncalled for and honestly should have prompted a block or two. If this goes to arbcom at some point, I'm hopeful that the two who primarily made it an attack will see a well-deserved boomerang effect both for the attack and the tenacious editing that kept it that way.

Second, Cirt needs to realize how his work sometimes does look like advocacy. I see it in a number of the links listed above. That line is crossed every day by any number of good editors. I don't see any BLP-violations (I don't consider tone to be an BLP-violation unless it's just horrible). But as an admin and a highly prolific writer he needs to be especially careful. I think those who have started this case have shown that that his work is occasionally too one-sided, but honestly I think I could make that case against nearly any prolific editor given enough time and patience. And wow, is there some serious stretching to get here. The bacon one is just so lame it's funny. That doesn't mean he shouldn't strive to improve--I think it's a valid knock on his work. But he is clearly a huge net benefit to the project. If he's prone to making articles too one-sided and not being able to see that, it's pretty easy for others to fix. Heck, I think he'll agree with the issue and is making an effort to get into (somewhat) less controversial areas where that issue is unlikely to be a big deal.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2.  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Spot on. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agreed. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Orderinchaos 17:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Quigley (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agreed. There's room for anyone to improve, though a tribunal like this isn't necessarily a good place for constructive criticism. Having slogged through all the evidence and claims there is no smoking gun or apparent basis beyond conjecture for saying that Cirt's motivations are underhanded, and some farfetched complaints that obscure and discredit any valid ones. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I too would like to see Cirt do some much less controversial topic areas, his interests seem to be in areas that are a little edgy in their own right, so I think that might be a little too much to ask of him. But he does do well with Bacon! Sadads (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Cardamon (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Seems to nail the situation pretty well. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted Cirt is a prolific editor who does a lot of good work. There is no denying this. However, like the rest of us he's far from perfect. Unlike the rest of us he seems to enjoy instant protection and reaffirmation when he gets into disputes with others, even at times when it turns out that what Cirt is doing is by no means the best thing for the encyclopedia. To a certain extent that concern has been outlined above, but I want to focus on one specific aspect of this.

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

When I first encountered these problems it was just prior to the first Daryl Wine Bar AfD. As I understand it User:Njsustain started to question the notability of the Daryl entry, one that Cirt had authored and User:Amatulic had subsequently plugged into the New Brunswick, New Jersey entry, where Njsustain first took note of it. Cirt's response to having his content questioned as a puff piece and an advertisement was to drag Njustain to AN/I to be flogged, and sure enough he was ganged up on rather quickly despite the fact that the Daryl entry was quite clearly non-notable advertising, for which it was righly deleted on the second try. It is notable that Cirt did not object to deletion the second time, despite fighting it vigorously the first. What was the difference? The restaurant had, by that time closed. That circumstance somewhat mirrors the Kenneth Dickson AfDs, which I was made aware off during the Daryl conversations. During the first AfD which Cirt vigorously fought, Dickson was still in the running. By the time the second AfD came around Dickson was out of the running and Cirt was less interested in defending his article. However what troubled me most about the Daryl Wine Bar incident was the use of AN/I to have an opponent flogged.

User:THF and Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

A few months later I came across another instance in which Cirt had dragged another editor (User:THF) to multiple noticeboards, after that editor opposed Cirt during an AfD of one of Cirt's articles. After THF's comments about the Werner Erhard article Cirt decided to involve himself in a matter that THF was already deeply embroiled and intimately so accusing THF of issuing legal threats at AN/I and of violating COI, at COI/N. Both claims were found to be completely spurious, and both surely looked an awful lot like retaliation or attempts to gain leverage by dragging an editor in a content dispute to a venue where Cirt knew he had an advantage.

Conclusion

I realize that these two incidents may seem minor in light of everything else being discussed here but I think they exemplify something more serious. If you have a look at other incidents mentioned in this RFC you will undoubtedly see some of the same tactics employed by Cirt and/or by his supporters. Those who oppose Cirt's articles end up being accused of behavioral policy violations, especially things like WP:HOUNDING, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, but certainly not limited to those (see above). These people are often dragged to noticeboards where they are ganged up on or warned sternly on their talk pages by admins. While I can accept that I might be wrong about the quality or encyclopedic value of some of Cirt's work, I cannot accept this kind of bullying, which I believe is made possibly by abusing our core mechanisms of dealing with disruption (noticeboards, admin authority, etc.). Again, I want to stress that Cirt is clearly a top notch content contributor and an asset to Wikipedia, but that should not prevent us from looking at his flaws, especially when they are also enabled by others in the community, however unconsciously that might be happening. Cheers.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Griswaldo (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. A longstanding pattern. I recall one user in particular (User:PelleSmith) who retired from Wikipedia because of the harassment—he had left Wikipedia by the time his content argument (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Midwest_Book_Review) was vindicated by other editors, notably User:DGG. That, too, concerned an issue of promotionalism. It was sickening. [151] --JN466 03:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, bullying, see what I wrote about my experience below. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. reminds me of the way scientologists can get when disagreed with. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. This actually understates the level of abusive bullying and harassment that Cirt engages in to win edit disputes. You can add me to the list of editors whom Cirt is at least partially responsible for driving away from Wikipedia. Separately, his editing behavior on Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System was entirely inappropriate; if Cirt's political POV-pushing wasn't for such a popular cause, he'd have been topic-banned ages ago. (COI disclosure: Marc Randazza, whom I have never met, and who seems to be tangentially involved in this, was one of several parties who participated in an amicus brief in support of my position as a libel defendant/appellee in the Third Circuit.) THF (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. We're all agreed this is a competent editor. It is clear he has written puff pieces and hatchet jobs, and misrepresented sources and engaged in egregious OR in support of an ideological position. There is no question that these actions were deliberate, brazenly tendentious and an embarrassment to and abuse of the project. If the community just shrugs at this, then the community is a fool. But I am most worried by the bullying and gaming that Griswaldo, Cla68 and others highlight. It is obvious, and if the community ignores this, too, the community is complicit in his and his chorus' bullying. Notwithstanding the chorus' bleating here, the inappropriateness of this person's behaviour is patent. (I have followed all the above links and spent a couple of weeks on Talk:Santorum (neologism) during the most recent RfC.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. User Cirt is a competent writer of articles to support off wiki activism and puff pieces and hatchet jobs, he is also a user that is prepared to defend this content at all costs with all tools and support and experience of the black arts he can muster. When the community spots it or he violates policy and guidelines too much for his causes he finally backs off politely and moves to another area - how many areas has he got left before users wake up to the fact that this wikipedia will get written fast enough and much more neutrally without his contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Kanguole 10:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. As I've indicated elsewhere in this discussion, I'm deeply concerned about situations where a content dispute can get quickly transformed into a conduct dispute without adequate reason. I almost ended up in such a position in early 2010, after unwittingly stumbling upon a page (Another Gospel) that Cirt had spent a lot of time on. Thankfully, I managed to emerge from this ordeal relatively unscathed, and hopefully my editing skills improved somewhat as a result, but I can easily see how another editor in my place might have ended up on the receiving end of nasty discipline. I'm sorry to see that my experience was apparently neither the first nor the last time such things have happened when this particular person was involved. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. As the person who had my name dragged through the mud for having the "nerve" to note that there seemed to be a COI/puff situation for Daryl Wine Bar, I concur with the analysis of what occurred. Cirt did not want to follow the rules of WP when it came to "his" article, and used his authority to bully me... and many other admins stood behind him because he was an admin (one of them even thought it was appropriate to call me a "dick" ... what more evidence is needed of administrators bullying editors who disagree with them?), not for any rational reason, as the consensus reached later by clearer heads (when it was not a personal vendetta of a scorned admin against a lowly editor) was that it was, of course, a puff piece written to promote a business for whatever reason. Why was he so vehemently defending the article's inclusion while the restaurant was open, then suddenly clammed up once it closed? The answer is obvious... and this obvious abuse of administrative authority and the permissiveness of other admins to let it happen is simply corruption, plain and simple, and has turned me almost completely off of WP. I edit very little now, and really do not care what consequence results to my account or name for speaking the truth about what has been going on here. Njsustain (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks and smells like a hatchet job, though done with a blunderbuss.<ugh> To me it looks like ye olde claim of "He is subjective, and I am objective". Simple fact is that any forensic analysis of edits will show a bias one direction or another, and we can all cherry-pick edits to prove our point; what about the thousands of other edits that are not problematic and vastly outweigh those that are not. It is so very easy to throw in words (mud?) like deceit and dishonesty and when makes the accusations one should clearly demonstrate them. IMNSHO this simply has not been done. Expectation of perfection is unreasonable, and that is why we have our processes and review. I like some of Cirt's stuff, and dislike others, doesn't make either us write or wrong, just different. Understand and manage your biases, appreciate difference and move on.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC) formatted as a view and endorsement --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC) [152][reply]
2. Mostly agree here. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is written a bit boldly, but certainly expresses my gut feelings well. Wnt (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Orderinchaos 07:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree Wikipedia has bigger issues it needs to address Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I had dealings with Cirt because I fixed a deletion request on Commons of some of those anti-Scientology video files of his. Apparently, that got me on his/her list of ideological adversaries. In order to protect the videos, Cirt wrote Aaron Saxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). When I corrected a year of birth, Cirt templated me with BLP warnings. Eventually, he got me banned from editing scientology for two weeks. It is a subject that does not really interest me, and I could not be bothered to appeal the decision. But it is an example of Cirt's extreme and dishonest wikilawyering, and of his/her abuse of process to push a point of view and to get perceived enemies "neutralized".

Cirt uses those self-published videos (which Cirt preserves and makes more "respectable" by uploading them to Commons) to make all kind of nasty accusations against the adherents of the cult. Well, in my opinion they have freedom of religion too, and BLP should apply to scientologists as to anybody else. For many of those accusations there is just no reliable source.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Parallels to the case with Delicious carbuncle. Except this one never got overturned. --JN466 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seems like more of the same bullying. There is no reason why this type of behavior has to accompany Cirt's great content contributions and admin work.Griswaldo (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not really an 'outside view', but a troubling observation. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Pieter could have better handled the situation which resulted in his 2-week ban, but he does appear to have been baited and bullied. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sorry to hear about that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been only peripherally involved in most of the matters here, Jayen asked me to comment, because of those where I did have some involvement, such as the Daryl Wine Bar article. Reviewing the entire matter presented above, I am particularly concerned with three area. First, some of the article are outrageously promotional. I too am sometimes asked by outside commercial or non-commercial entities to write articles and agree to do so, but I would never conceivable write an article such as the one on Corbin Fisher. I was not previously aware of this article, or the ones on the various politicians. Some of them, including the one on Fisher, were I to encounter them on new pages patrol, I would seriously consider either reducing to a stub, or placing a G11 speedy tag as hopelessly promotional unless rewritten from scratch. The highlighting of quotations of vague praise in them is particularly striking, and is typical of professional PR writing writing--just being sourceable does not make them necessarily suitable. I do not regard trying to write articles about people associated with a particular religious movement as necessarily wrong, but I do regard concentrating on such content as to the extent shown here as inappropriate, especially the effort of writing articles to include some of the borderline notable anti-scientology figures or the books they publish. I found the santorum matter too despicable to comment on at the time, and though I do not generally favor deletion of such garbage once it has attracted popular attention, I think the concentration on it unsuitable. There is an additional matter I must mention; like myself, Cirt has OTRS access. I do not think an editor who would write the promotional pieces he has written should be in such a position, but this will need to be discussed elsewhere. My work as an inclusionist in Wikipedia goes hand-in-hand with my work to remove promotionalism. Promotionalism is a serious danger to the encyclopedia, more so than articles about borderline notable things in general, for it makes our efforts to increased reliability ineffective; I would be reluctant to take seriously a reference source that runs what in effect are political or commercial advertisements.

As for remedies, there is a very simple one: increased attention to articles he has initiated, and not by those such as DC with whom he is in a continuing pattern of conflict. It is not possible to remove autopatrolled from an an administrator, and I see no serious concerns that he has misused administrative tools. But were he not an admin, I would suggest removing it. Some other person needs to check articles he contributes.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 June 2011
2. I agree, especially the points about the autopatrolling and the OTRS. Also there, Cirt certifies that his own uploads are files with adequate permissions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. A good summary of some of the issues. I understand there is some partisan support for such editing as Cirt is capable of, such as if I hate a politician who demeans my sexual preference and a user writes a great article that is a cited attack against that person then I can see the attraction and appreciate the partisan support that might create for that editor when they use all the techniques in the book to raise the profile of that cited attack and to google bomb it, but it is extremely detrimental to the neutrality of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. This type of writing is detrimental to the project, and efforts to keep in in check need to be increased not stamped out.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Thank you for commenting. I agree with this assessment. --JN466 17:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with the broad principle that promotionalism is a serious danger to the credibility of the encylcopedia, and that less invested people should be the ones paying attention to his articles, although I don't share the judgment that Cirt's articles were "outrageously promotional". Quigley (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I agree with DGG's assessment. One of the key questions is whether this is just good-faith over-enthusiasm. But two issues in particular have made AGF problematic. I posted rather a long comment about this, so I've removed it and I'll link to it here instead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. I agree, especially w/r/t OTRS and autopatrolling. Without trying (or even needing to try) to make any accusations, it should go without saying that anyone involved with OTRS should carefully respect the rules and should always recuse him/herself in any situation where he/she is (or might reasonably be expected to become) involved. And I agree in principle with the idea of having others double-check Cirt's article creation work (even if the end result is a conclusion that there really isn't a problem after all) — as long as this activity doesn't turn into an exercise in wikistalking. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Again for me this sepcifically is related to BLP issues, as I have not viewed all of Cirt's edits in even the past two weeks. Collect (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. If someone does as you suggests and checks the articles that Cirt works on in the future, will they be accused of "wikihounding" and "harassment" when they bring up any concerns they have in any of the dispute resolution forums? I hope that one result of this RfC is to provide a "no" answer to that question. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I agree with most of DGG's points. There is probably some point where enthusiasm crosses the line into POV territory. I have my own issues with Future Perfect /Cirt tandem actions that were too consistent to be coincidence and which call into question, for me, Cirt's actions on that issue and elsewhere.(olive (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
15. Generally agree. If this were inexperience or incompetence, keeping a weather eye on him in future would be appropriate. But this is deft and deliberate. It troubles me we haven't seen an acknowledgment from this editor that their behaviour, both the bullying and the tendentious editing, is inappropriate. If he's not fit for autopatrolled, and he's not, there is an obvious remedy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Kanguole 10:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Epbr123 (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt was one of the first editors I met on Wikipedia, and up until about 6-7 months ago one the ones I interacted with the most. My primary interactions with Cirt involved mostly within the Scientology topic area but extended to other "Cult"/New RM articles. I have had my disagreements with Cirt mostly content but increasingly on Conduct as well. I have largely stayed out "Santorum" mess because I just dont have the time to argue about it. Cirt's editing record is prolific 12 FA, 87 GA, and 152 Dyks, an Administrator on multiple projects, OTRS volunteer, and check user on Wikinews. Cirt is an expert researcher I have yet to find a contribution by Cirt that was not meticulously researched and written. I have defended Cirt on at least four occassions when I think they have been unfairly harrased by editors.[153][154][155][156]

Cirt has longstanding interest with the Church of Scientology, no one seems to dispute the fact Cirt has been creating or expanding articles that are unflattering to CoS. The pattern of this shows an agenda/bias/slant against Church of Scientology. Such agendas/bias are not against Wikipedia policy unless they harm the integrity of the Encyclopedic content and our five pillars. It has been my opinion that Cirt has crossed the line with on many occasions within the topic area as extensively and throughly documented by Jayen466 and Cla68.One of my biggest things that sticks in my head was the List of deaths related to Scientology (AFD&DRV)

At Revision 392498884 the article had been Written primarily by Cirt and Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). (With a few minor edit by others including a prod, two Awb runs and one other minor edit.) The article combined loosely related material that included material ranging from "seizures, accidents, and murders where Scientology had varied levels of involvement" into one article was clearly a NPOV violation.

Another instance of extreme actions by Cirt that leaps to mind is the after the QuantumSilverfish SPI Cirt began a table on the talk page to find Scientology Socks. Investigating Sockpuppetry is all good in most peoples books. This exchange in particular has concerned me for some time.

The BLPSPS is particularly worriesome as it violated just about everything in BLP and NPOV. The video put into Mace Kingsley Ranch included just as a sample:

• Hearsay of Sexual abuse by staff members
• Failure to adequately provide shelter for students
• Abuse by Church Staff
• Failure to provide Nutrition
• Failure to keep record confidential in accordance with federal law.

Cirt's behavioral pattern is one the goes against the spirit of out policies even if it does not break the letter of any policy. Cirt's pattern of activism centers on finding an unflattering incident involving "Group X or Person X" (X= Church of Scientology, Rajneesh, est, Rick Santorum) and then creates an article on it. This pattern is re-occuring one of Coatracking material on Organizations and people who Cirt dislikes and fluffing up material on pages of Organizations and people Cirt likes. This pattern really has to end.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think you got a couple paragraphs duplicated. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. It includes uploading legal claims against such groups to Commons (but not subsequent dismissals of same claims, or counterclaims), creating dozens of positive articles on books by cult critics, articles on legal cases people like Erhard have lost (but not those they have won), uploading dozens of videos by critics only, etc. Because Cirt is so prolific, it has a biasing effect on the project as a whole. --JN466 22:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. THF (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
7. There is something troubling about the extent of his advocacy and what it sometimes leads to.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Griswaldo. As well 'coatracking' can be a relatively insidious way of creating non neutral articles. Once created they can be hard to identify unless editors have a good knowledge of the topic/subject matter.(olive (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
9. Again iterating that much of this is BLP related. Collect (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. No problem with Cirt adding negative or positive stuff to articles, according to his predilection. Big problem with him twisting topics away from NPOV to serve an agenda. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. After reviewing Jayen's evidence about several Scientology articles as discussed on the talk page, and because RA concentrates on what Cirt did with his edits instead of supposing why he made them, I'm now prepared to endorse RA's statement. Whatever the reason, Cirt's edits in political articles related to Scientology show a pattern of POV that is difficult to explain. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was having a conversation off-wiki and it reminded me. I did want to acknowledge Cirt's voluntary withdraw from the Church of Scientology and wider Scientology topic area. It was a rather extreme concession that I still am astounded he made. It is also one I still have mixed feeling about it due to Cirt's good works in the area that were well balanced.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Quigley (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I didn't think it was necessary for Cirt to leave the Scientology topic altogether, just back off adding so much Scientology information to BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree that it was a serious concession. I, for one, would not want to see him leave any topic areas. He just needs to edit appropriately within them. When people are questioning how he edits it is not productive for him to simply keep on pairing down what he edits.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think Cirt is not acting in a knowingly, deliberately malicious fashion. I believe many of the conflicts (including one I had myself with Cirt some time back) are happening because she is quick — far quicker than I would be — to view others' disagreements as personal attacks, and/or to see others' differing interpretations of policy as constituting disruptive editing or vandalism. When I started making a renewed, conscious effort to phrase everything I was saying and doing in terms of the core WP principles, and to strive scrupulously to be on my best wikibehaviour at all times, I made a lot more progress with Cirt than I had up till then. Some might say that this simply means I ought to have been doing a better job of precise obedience all along — and to the extent that the experience helped give me a renewed understanding and appreciation of the project's goals and methods, it probably was a good thing. At the same time, however, I do believe Cirt also needs to try harder to understand and work cooperatively (not confrontationally) with editors she perceives as being difficult, since in many cases they (rightly, wrongly, or somewhere in between) honestly believe they are the ones who are being reasonable.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. True; and Cirt is not the only person who could benefit from the advice. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I been a perpetual state of ambivalence over whether Cirt is "deliberately malicious" or whether just blinded by POV on topics. Either way the overly defensive nature is definitely a large part of the problem. I once asked a question about the weight given to a Satirical magazine in article on an Academic book. Cirt got extremely defensive about it and I felt like I was being stonewalled. That is the type behavior most concerning I cant tell even now if it was defensive about my questioning her work or if it was simply being evasive hoping I'll get tired of attempting dialogue. Cirt is amazingly intelligent so its annoying in those conversations when she is so dense. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is more of an endorsement of what RA has just said, because I have felt the same ambivalence, sometimes trying hard to assume good faith, and at others being left with an impression of clear malice. I have honestly sometimes wondered if there are two people operating the account, or whether Cirt just does this for a laugh. Something doesn't jell. Here are some examples—extremely aggressive run-ins with a whole slew of established and respected editors: Scott MacDonald Scott, again Griswaldo THF Dbachmann Pieter KuiperRich Farmbrough (Cirt later apologised) and thisseries of exchanges with PelleSmith which ended with this. And the argument with Pelle was that Cirt wanted to cite a book review 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. DGG took it out. But by that time Pelle had left the project. So, regardless whether it's good-faith distress or malice, there is a cost here. --JN466 16:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Also agree that this is about effects of editing and not intentions.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Richwales: While I will concede that an editor who is as prolific as Cirt and who has done a lot of work on articles dealing with controversial issues — no matter how conscientious he/she may be — is bound to "make enemies" and may possibly even slip up on occasion, I honestly don't believe that fully explains what is going on here. I would hope Cirt will be open to considering that she does sometimes jump to inaccurate conclusions regarding other editors' motivations, and that she needs to try harder to understand where others are "coming from" and accept that they are often having as hard a time comprehending Cirt's perspective as Cirt may be having trying to comprehend theirs. While I respect the views of those who think this whole issue is just a bunch of tiny blips and not worthy of any serious discussion, I must respectfully disagree — there really is a problem here, it ideally ought not to happen at all, and it's important to reduce its incidence to as low a level as possible (ideally to zero).

Users who endorse this addendum:

1. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. --JN466 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. well said The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. No editor should make assumptions about other editor's motiviations when they aren't explicitly stated, and Cirt's no exception. Some of Cirt's problem here may not even be a lack of comprehension as a lack of tactful writing. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Griswaldo (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. And I think it's important to understand that this RfC/U ultimately does not reduce to being black-and-white. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been repeatedly accused of an anti-cult and anti-religion POV pusher, but I am concerned that Cirt has gone too far regarding Scientology even for my standards.

I have read extensively about new religious movements and cults, both by adherents, opponents, apostates (critical former ex-members), countercultists and by scholars like J. Gordon Melton. I am convinced that Melton is a fine source for beliefs and practices of new religious movements, though he is for my taste far too uncritical when describing controversies. He completely ignores complaints from ex-members, which he openly and sincerely admits and explains. Also Encyclopedia Britannica as a commercial encyclopedia cannot afford to alienate readers by too much criticism of religion.

P.S. I am myself a critical former member of a new religious movement and hence I cannot accept the methodology of Melton, though I am aware and understand the numerous methodological problems of using testimony from former members. These methological problems include 1. how representative is it? 2. Verification is sometimes tedious or even impossible. 3. Emotional bias of ex-members, like after a divorce. 4. Change of world view after leaving and hence a re-interpretation of events. 5. Influence of media on the testimony who like sensational stories. 6. Influence of oppositional movements on the testimony, like anti-cult movement). Andries (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Andries (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with this. I didn't get the connection at first, but Andries is pointing out that J. Gordon Melton is indeed a reliable source in this area, even if he doesn't agree with Melton's methodology -- (see the bottom of this section of Jayen's statement for the connection). In my view it is hard to take attempts to discredit expert sources like this in good faith.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree Melton WP:RS, Its funny how people complain about the Church of Scientology suing the pants off people who say things they dislike... then wonder why scholars are uneasy about writing more critical treatments of CoS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moreover, Cirt is happy to cite and quote Melton as an RS when it suits: [157]. These arguments over what are first-rate sources per WP:IRS are so tedious. (It's ironic that this is actually the exact same book chapter I had proposed using at the Xenu article. Perhaps it's just a questionable source when I bring it to the table. If so, it worked—I never did incorporate that source in the article. Entering these arguments with Cirt is like voluntarily inserting a pineapple in your rectum. Here is another of these pineapple conversations.) --JN466 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I see a connection here with incidents such as the Daryl Wine Bar deletion flap reported earlier by Griswaldo, in which Cirt accused another editor of disruptive editing practices because the other editor had brought up WP:NPOV and WP:COI concerns about an article without backing up his objections with reliable secondary sources — an interpretation of policy which, BTW, I'm honestly not at all sure is correct. As I tried to explain in my own "outside view" comments above, I don't necessarily see this as evidence of malicious wikilawyering — probably more of a question of jumping to honest but way-overzealous conclusions — but the result can be similar when editors hold too rigidly to a cut-and-dried world view in which everything is black and white and any "difference of opinion" must obviously mean the other person is engaging in vandalism and "POV pushing". Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC) — Addendum: It may be extremely difficult, or even impossible, to find a wide selection of reliable secondary sources on a topic that is fundamentally not notable. When all the sources appear to go one way, does that mean there is in fact only one generally accepted viewpoint, and that anyone questioning this (but without providing sources for their view) is by definition ignoring WP:RS and committing the wiki-sins of WP:OR, POV pushing, and vandalism? Or might it mean that the subject is so inherently obscure and non-notable that the reason why there are so few sources is that no one knows or cares enough about it to say anything? Cases like this are not always cut and dried, may require a healthy application of common sense, and are arguably one of the reasons for the "poor stepchild" policy of WP:IAR. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key questions is whether any problems are the result of good-faith over-enthusiasm. But two issues in particular have made AGF problematic:

1. Misleading use of source material: In May 2011, Cirt created a Recognition and usage section in Santorum (neologism). He added to it: "The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of 'deliberate coining'". This edit implied that the dictionary had included "santorum" as a word. When Jayen found a copy, the dictionary in fact made clear that it had not included it, and it explained why: "An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. 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." It was misleading to include the dictionary as a source in the Usage section, with in-text attribution, without making clear that the dictionary had said explicitly that the apparent online usage was not legitimate.

2. Misleading reply about reason for creating an article: In June 2011, Cirt acknowledged that, on 6 December 2009, he created an article about a porn company, Corbin Fisher, at the request of the company's lawyer. He said this in an email forwarded confidentially to the ArbCom with Cirt's permission, but it was among the material recently leaked, and others have referred to it above, so there's no point pretending it wasn't said. The article was promotional in tone; see this version. He also wrote an article about that lawyer for Wikinews on 4 October 2009; [158] interviewed him on 19 October; [159] wrote about one of his cases again on 22 October; [160] again on 7 November; [161] and interviewed him a second time on 10 November. [162]

Jayen asked Cirt about Corbin Fisher in May. Cirt replied: "Through research on one of the free speech lawyers [from a particular case], I improved the article on attorney Marc Randazza. After performing research on that article, I came by the topic of Corbin Fisher." [163] But "came by" isn't quite what happened.

These two issues, together with the volume of apparently promotional edits and the repeated focus on the main page, have made it difficult to assume good faith.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cirt's work on the Santorum article, and the seven Dan Savage DYKs, would have made a different impression on me had I not known that Cirt had previously made use of the Wikipedia (and Wikiquote) main page to support outside campaigns. --JN466 23:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Griswaldo (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. unfortunately. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling this an "outside view" because I'm uninvolved with the events surrounding this RFC. But in the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I like Cirt, who is one of the very small number of editors with whom I have interacted off-wiki. So I'm uninvolved, but perhaps not entirely neutral.

It strikes me that people who have made an extraordinarily large number of contributions will inevitably have made an extraordinarily large number of mistakes; and given the way Wikipedia works, they will also have made an extraordinarily large number of enemies. Cirt has amassed 87 GAs, 12 FAs, a FL, and 73 barnstars, among rather a lot else. And he's done it in often-controversial areas of the Wiki. Why's anyone surprised that he has enemies? He has also made 145,000 contributions. Mathematically, half of those contributions were below average for Cirt. See where I'm coming from?

I want to point out that there's an entire subforum of the Wikipedia Review that's personally devoted to Cirt-hating. These people have been collaborating to collect evidence against Cirt since 16 November 2008. [164] Given the sheer number of Cirt's contributions and the time they've spent brewing this, I am personally amazed at how little they've come up with.

Cirt has pointed out a lot of home truths about Scientology, and he's made a self-confessed homophobe uncomfortable. I have a violent urge to say "Good for Cirt", and although I accept that WikiPolicy means I'm supposed to frown and wring my hands about that, Cirt is a victim here too. There have been POV hatchet-job essays naming and shaming him in Wikipedia-space. Extraordinary contributions should attract tolerance and respect. Users who endorse this summary:

1. —S Marshall T/C 20:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I feel that there are issues with Cirt's editing that he needs to address. But yeah, I'd expect that of any editor as prolific as he is and if this is the worst people can find... Hobit (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as I can tell I am an outsider. I have observed the to and fro of stormy debate at santorum and did profer a comment there. It strikes me that Cirt's (and I'm looking for the right words here) overall modus operandi is to work on related articles in bursts. I find I do. If I contribute to an article and that relates to another article then I find myself contributing related material there, and of course linking in and out to other articles. Now if related articles receive a focus of attention, they may all reach suitability for DYK at the same time and appear there. And I find myself partially engaged in similar occurence at this time. The major differences I see however between Cirt's work and the instance I have in mind are:

1. Cirt is a high output editor and has the time, resources, mindset to work on articles quickly, and without other editors.
2. Cirt is generally operating in topical and biographical matters. (compared to my dabblings in technical matters of the Second World War)

This, I think, means that articles where Cirt's contributions dominate (as in more numerous not overrule) are:

1. more likely to bear Cirt's own slant on the subject
2. less likely to have had the moderating influence of time and other editors contributions
3. more likely to be of immediate relevance, and hence likely to cause concern to other editors (the editing community as a whole acting as a proxy for the silent readership)

The end result being that - whether through deliberate action (and Cirt's intent is known truly only by Cirt) or an absence of insight - Cirt's behaviour appears to some to be that of political activism through the medium of wikipedia and as such damaging to wikipedia. And as such it doesn't matters that Cirt was not persuing a personal agenda if the end result is the same as if they had been.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Some useful observations and insights here. Part of this situation has been articles arriving at DYK in a woefully POV state, as in the case of the politicians' bios. And being as they were minor figures attracting few editors' interest, these articles are still not NPOV today, just tagged. --JN466 21:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with everything up to the conclusion. I'd rephrase that as "...Cirt's behaviour appears to some to be that of activism and/or promotion through the medium of Wikipedia. Maintaining a NPOV is important to Wikipedia's reputation, and Cirt needs to improve in this area." The phrase "damaging to Wikipedia", while true in the most literal sense, could be read to indicate he is a net negative. I strongly disagree with that. I also think political activism is too narrow. Hobit (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Hobit, including rephrase, insofar as it refers to the allegations of political motivation for Cirt's edits. But, by the guidelines in the Noleander case, [165] it may not sufficiently explain the apparent ideological POV for some articles, some of which may happen to be political. I think this is an important distinction. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. helpful observations that I hope Cirt can use to moderate the appearant POV problems. I also agree with Macwhiz it's more ideological issues than political ones.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the long-suffering wife of JN466, I have been following this cirtcus from the sidelines for quite some time. To say I’m stunned by the amount of bad faith lobbed in my husband’s, Cla68’s, SlimVirgin’s, Off2riorob’s, and Griswaldo’s general direction is putting it mildly. It’s not just the fact that Cirt’s Flying Monkeys consider themselves qualified to comment without having read all the evidence my husband spent hours and hours collating, it’s the way they twist the facts to make them fit in with their worldview. Reason or common sense don’t seem to come into it. So what, you’re all back in high school, siding with the biggest bully because he’s a useful bully? For shame, you lot! I for one am reasonably sure that the editors Cirt managed to block/scare off the project would have contributed just as much if not more objective content over the years had they been given a fair chance. And isn’t it ‘interesting’ that a person so adept at hounding his critics on their respective talk pages/taking them to ANI is too beset by ‘family tragedies’ or rather too busy making hundreds of edits per day to his next pet projects to speak up for himself when he’s finally called out on _some_ of his actions? Way more convenient – and obviously successful – to play the victim card. Again, classic bully behaviour. As in ‘I will dish out to my heart’s content, but dare challenge me, and I will call bully on _you_.’ The facts are obvious. They should be more important than Wiki office politics.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, JN466 may be many things to the Cirt faction, but as a person intimately familiar with the workings of his heart and mind, I can assure you that he did not start this RFC because he had ‘an axe to grind’ with Cirt. JN is one of them rare fools you might refer to as idealists, and a true believer in fair play. Unfortunately, that entails a good amount of playing devil’s advocate on WP – my husband has no love for Rick Sanitarium and may well be able to teach the lovely Dan S. a thing or two about bedroom acrobatics – but the thing he values most is affording every person on this earth, no matter how odious or adorable their politics may be, a chance of being viewed objectively by people he considers smart enough to make up their own minds. I think you guys could do worse than subscribe to this philosophy.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --DracoEssentialis (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. -Emotional support to you and support for Jayen's intellectual neutrality and ability to research and discuss at length and his willingness to find a compromise position with discussion and within policy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. They aren't back in high school; they just graduated. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yep. Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Well said. I'd like to remind everyone, please don't blame Cirt for what has been said in his "defense" by other editors in this RfC or on its talk page. Those editors are accountable for their own actions. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Refreshing, finally. Jayen's honesty and fairness have always been apparent.(olive (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
7. Agreed, and I'm glad DracoEssentialis drew attention to the flying monkeys comment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Because of the incredible attacks on this statement that some "flying monkeys" made on the talk page. But Cirt has endorsed the desired outcome. I wish this would end here. Enjoy the summer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I do think that Jayen is acting in good faith here and that deserves and endorsement, especially given the reactions to this view on the talk page, which IMO have been out of line.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-the-wall comment on DracoEssentialis's comment by Llywrch:

Frank Zappa, "The older you get, the more you realize life is like high school, only with more money." -- llywrch (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, I endorse this closure. If the RFAr is not accepted or ends unsatisfactorily, another RFC can always be opened. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC) To clarify, I endorse the act of closing this RFC because of the pending RFAr, and I endorse the first and last sentences of Jehochman's closing statement. I do not endorse the rest of his summary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

I've taken the liberty to go through the first 12 statements (12 because I really need to go to bed now), classify them as "Negative" (-), "Positive" (+) or "Neutral" (=), and reorganisied the table to cluster endorsements by type. The result is the table below - I hope I have not made any mistakes, but I'm a human:

Key to the rows:

1 Certifiers and endorsers

2 Additional views by Cla68

3 Whistleblower protection

4 Additional views by Jayen466

5 Semi-involved view by Wnt

6 Peripherally-involved view by Quigley

7 Semi-involved view by Khazar

8 Semi-involved view by LuftWaffle0

9 Semi-involved view by Georgewilliamherbert

A Outside view by Collect

B Outside view by Gamaliel

C Outside view by macwhiz

                                 1-  2-  3-  4-  A-  7=  8=  5+  6+  9+  B+  C+
Jayen466                        X   X   X   X   X   X                 
Griswaldo                       X   X   X       X   X                 
The Resident Anthropologist     X   X   X       X   X                 
Cla68                           X   X           X                     
Rocksanddirt                        X   X       X                     
Off2riorb                           X   X   X               
Collect                         X               X                     
SlimVirgin                      X                           
Nolelover                           X           X                     
Viriditas                           X                       
DGG                                 X           X                     
THF                                     X                   
Anthonyhcole                            X       X                     
Kanguole                                X       X                     
Tarc                                            X                      
Richwales                                       X                     
Khazar                                              X              
Cirt                                                X              
Qrsdogg                                             X              
Macwhiz                                             X   X   X           X   X
Hobit                                               X       X   X       X   X
LuftWaffle0                                             X          
Wnt                                                         X           X   X
LadyOfShalott                                               X
Quigley                                                     X   X       X   X
Ohms law                                                    X   X       X   X
Gamaliel                                                    X   X       X   X
JamesMLane                                                  X           X   X
Piotrus                                                     X           X   X
Orderinchaos                                                X   X       X   X
Jmh649                                                      X
Sadads                                                      X   X       X   X
Brewcrewer                                                  X   X       X   X
Cardamon                                                    X           X
Jusdafax                                                    X   X       X
Atmoz                                                       X   X       X
AKMask                                                      X           X   X
MartinPoulter                                                   X       X   X
William M. Connolley                                            X           X
Protonk                                                         X       X   X
OlEnglish                                                       X
R. Baley                                                        X           X
Count Iblis                                                     X       X   X
Georgewilliamherbert                                                X
Prioryman                                                               X   X
JoshuaZ                                                                 X   X
Raoul654                                                                X
Throwaway85                                                                 X
Ginsengbomb                                                                 X
Bearian                                                                     X
OhanaUnited                                                                 X
Elektrik Shoos                                                              X
                                1-  2-  3-  4-  A-  7=  8=  5+  6+  9+  B+  C+

• 52 people have endorsed statements.
• 16 people have endorsed at least one Negative statement.
• 33 people have endorsed at least one Positive statement.
• 9 People have endorsed at least one Neutral statement
• Not a single person has endorsed both Negative and Positive statements.

It's obvious that this is highly polarised. There are probably other things one can get from the data. Enjoy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfC officially began June 27, and was intermittently closed July 5, a total of nine days that included a long holiday weekend in the US. As of this time, there has been very little opportunity for editors who would hold positions in between the two poles to sort through the voluminous claims and counter-claims, and to come up with non-polarized statements that might actually move towards a useful consensus. That's why RfC/Us normally run for 30 days. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This table is helpful. This RfC has been viewed 4,340 times in the nine days since it opened. The RfAR, in my opinion, helped generate an additional 500 views in just the last 24 hours. Seventy-four people have this page on their watchlist. So, it appears that many people have looked at the RfC but have so far not elected to give an opinion or endorse a view. Perhaps they are reserving judgement. This is one reason why the RfC needs to run the standard 30 days, to give all observers time to decide if they want to participate or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps they feel it isn't worth their time to step into the quagmire. That's been my experience. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ding ding ding!!! MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• To fairly give an opinion I'd have to read multiple versions of the article about the neologism, and the references cited. That's work I'm not willing to do. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has a history of misrepresenting sources, editing tendentiously, turning BLPs into attack pages, creating blatant advertisements for commercial interests, creating advertisements for political candidates in support of an Anonymous agenda and bullying and hounding his less experienced and less well-connected opponents, while wilting meekly away when discovered by more experienced, influential and unbiased editors. This has all occurred amidst a great cacophony of complaint from a number of editors whose arguments have been dismissed by the community at large, not on their merits, but because they have been successfully painted as new-age zealots who are out to get Cirt. Cirt does a good job of trashing Scientologists and the like, and (unless it suits the Anonymous agenda) conservative politicians, and for this he is much loved by many right-thinking Wikipedians, who have for years shouted down any criticism of Cirt and created such confusion around this criticism that rational, intelligent, unbiased admins have been happy to just let the kids brawl, rather than have to deal with the mess.

Notwithstanding the solid evidence provided in the statements above, Cirt denies he's done anything wrong, presumably expecting that no one worth listening to will go to the trouble of examining the evidence, because he has magnanamously elected to stay "away from BLPs that have political overtones, particularly those that have anything to do with Savage or Santorum." This tactic has worked for him in the past with regard to his egregious BLP violations and tendentious editing in the Scientology arena. Once he had graciously bowed out of there, the community at large concluded there was no point in examining his behaviour. He then moved on to Santorum (neologism).

I notice from his talk page he's showing an interest in free speech. I have no idea where he's intending to take that, but it's a fairly important topic area, and I think it behooves us to make it clear to Cirt where he might be able to improve his human interaction and editing skills.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. It should be noted that free speech runs like a red thread through the issues concerned here. Marc Randazza of Corbin Fisher is a noted free-speech lawyer; so is Mike Godwin (formerly of the EFF), who joined WMF as general counsel in July 2007. The EFF has been a party to several disputes between so-called cults and their critics (including disputes involving Werner Erhard and Scientology). Smee's/Cirt's Wikimedia fortunes experienced a complete reversal when he reappeared in September 2007 under a new user name, with Durova as his appointed mentor. [166] While Smee had struggled and acquired block logs, had been taken to mediation and arbitration over the Hunger Project, Cirt experienced a stellar rise across multiple Wikimedia projects. This may simply be due to his skills and talent, but I reserve the right to entertain the notion that there may be more to it than that. I am keenly aware that the founder of alt.religion.scientology was one of our early arbitrators here, and is not the only prominent Wikimedia figure with a history of anti-Scientology activism predating Wikipedia. I can't say whether that means anything, but it's certainly on my mind. --JN466 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC). Jayen's comment here makes me sad.[reply]
5. - The though of User:Cirt continuing the same edit patterns/policy violations in legal cases/free speech sector horrifies me.Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the content RfC about Santorum, and have since been paying attention to these controversies, but I am not otherwise involved. I've tried to read through all of what editors have said here (not easy!), and will try to distill the conclusions that I have drawn, with advice to Cirt in bold.

• Does Cirt appear to become interested in editing topics that have been highlighted by Anonymous? Yes.
• Is Cirt a POV pusher? No, not in the way that NPOV is generally understood. There are edits criticizing Republican candidates and edits praising Republican candidates. There may be a pattern of edits reflecting concerns that are the same as the concerns of Anonymous. Whether that pattern rises to the level of disruptive editing depends on the conduct exhibited by Cirt when those edits are disputed by other editors. And, there, the record is neither entirely good nor entirely bad.
• Does Cirt misuse Wikipedia in order to influence search engine optimization (SEO, aka WikiBombing)? No, these accusations are extremely unconvincing when examined closely. As has been noted, we have to be careful about impugning bad motives to enthusiastic editing, which can actually be the kind of editing behavior that should be encouraged. Above, we have a graph that merely shows that people watch Jon Stewart.
• Does Cirt have a tendency to edit too rapidly and with too much enthusiasm? Yes. There seems to be a clear pattern of getting interested in developing a page, then getting so committed to it that the editing becomes what appears to be POV editing, except that the real "POV" is that the subject of the page is so important that the page needs to drive home that importance. This editorial style has, understandably, made other editors deeply concerned, and is an area where Cirt needs to improve. Going forward, Cirt needs to take care when editing not to make pages that can be construed as "promotional", even when Cirt does not intend them to be promotional. Cirt needs to ask: "could an editor who disagrees with me construe this as promotional?", and if the answer is "yes", be open to edits that moderate what Cirt has written.
• Has Cirt misrepresented sources? Yes, although it is probably the case that there have been only a limited number of such instances, which have been magnified through the presentation of evidence here. It should also be noted that ArbCom declared in the Noleander decision that the effect of source misrepresentation is sanctionable, even if misrepresentation was not the intention. Going forward, Cirt needs to recognize that other editors will be closely scrutinizing Cirt's edits, and, knowing that, Cirt needs to take extra care that every representation of sources needs to be entirely accurate and professional.
• Is it reasonable for editors who disagree with Cirt to have concerns about Cirt's edits? Yes. Many of the articles in question are ones where editors acting in good faith can have sincerely different positions. Cirt should make a bigger effort to recognize that others can have good faith objections to Cirt's edits, and Cirt should make an effort to edit carefully, with that knowledge.
• Does Cirt have a tendency to be insensitive to new editors who make edits with which Cirt disagrees? Yes, although it is unclear how often this has occurred, within the total number of Cirt's contributions. It is particularly incumbent on an administrator not to label good faith edits as vandalism. Cirt should be especially careful not to call good faith edits vandalism, and should generally be willing to consider new editors to be making good faith edits intended to improve the page.
• Does Cirt hound experienced editors with whom Cirt disagrees? Honestly, I don't know, from what is presented here. It looks more like a battlefield with hounding in both directions.
• Does Cirt respond well, when challenged by other editors? No. And that is perhaps the biggest part of the problem here. What I see when looking at the evidence is too much quickness for Cirt to see bad faith on the part of other editors who sincerely disagree with Cirt on matters of content where there are genuinely two sides of the issue. The first response seems to be rapid reversion, which then too-quickly escalates to dispute resolution. Cirt should make an effort to make more use of WP:BRD. If Cirt is really correct on a particular point, it should be possible to make that case in talk, and persuade other editors, without escalation. On the other hand, I see time after time where, once escalation occurs, Cirt is too quick to announce that s/he will immediately disengage from the entire topic area, and abide by every tenet of good editing conduct. That is what Cirt's response to this RfC/U has been. And, frankly, I am very disappointed that Cirt has never responded to my suggestion on the talk page that s/he rebut—specifically—the claims made by the accusers. Please don't get me wrong: dropping the stick is often a commendable way to deal with conflict. But here, the pattern gives the appearance of Cirt not being sincere about wanting to do better in the future, and instead just trying to make what might be a losing dispute go away, especially since the patterns of disputed editing seem to just move from one topic to another. If Cirt is right, there should be no reason to move away; if Cirt is wrong, Cirt needs to do better even if editing somewhere else. When Cirt is criticized, Cirt needs to do more than just say that they will do better next time. Cirt needs to demonstrate, by substantive editing practice, that the things that were criticized before do not continue to happen.
• Is there a battleground here? Yes, of course. This RfC/U is about Cirt only, but the upcoming arbitration will need to look at all parties.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with most of this. (The paragraph on the Republicans fudges the issue a little -- some cases were Republican primaries. What is conspicuous is that there was always a candidate disfavoured because of their stance on Scientology. Btw, Santorum has been in cult controversy as well. [167]) --JN466 00:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Jayen on the POV pushing issue. That some people push POVs that transcend the divide between garden variety political camps does not make them any less of POV pushers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. But not so much the part about hounding; even if there's hounding both ways, I think it's nowhere near symmetrical. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Honestly Wikibombing issues has me unconvinced as well, I think that was it was something that Cirt may not have been aware of but did in fact occur in the google searches. I unlike other people here did watch for Cirt's return and keep an eye on him. After the mess last February and his withdraw from Scientology material and three month vacation I was glad to seem him return. The whole santorum things has me on the fence obviously notable topic but does the BLP trump it? Thats a question many of us our asking ourselves, since I think alot of us see the obvious BLP problems with it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Proceeded to arbitration following request for arbitration. 08:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.