User:Cumbrowski/eComXpo Incident Cerejota

Work in progress

Considered done and a document for Wikiarchaeologists.

Might be used in the future if user Cerejota starts showing a similar behavior on a different article --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes to put events into a chronological order, because Cerejota claims about what he did when are not entirely accurate. He stated that he did things at a time when he didn't and made strategically comments to the discussions to reinforce the misconception about the actual events to make him look like a good editor who is only interested into the greater good etc.

He did not started the AfD. The AfD was also about "db-repost", but Cerejota started arguing WP:CORP and WP:SNOW. The AfD was closed. The result was KEEP. Cerejota did another attempt to get the article deleted during the deletion review, which got even more editors speak up and disagree with him. The debates got the attention of other editors who started working on improving the article, when Cerejota started all of the sudden do delete huge amounts of the articles content. The edit comments point to the talk page where attempts are being made to communicate to Cerejota, which he ignores. He adds comments that do not address concerns expressed by other editors and myself. He only made statements about what he did addressing nobody.(the result). His deletions were made during the DRV. Also an interesting fact is that the editor who flagged the article for AfD did in the DRV endorse the decision to keep the article. Multiple editors who did changes to the article and then got reverted by Cerejota disagreed with him, not only on the subject, but also with the methods Cerejota used. There were several complaints being made about this. What then follows shows how to WP:GAME the system.

Relevant Pages

1. Article page eComXpo
2. Article talk page Talk:EComXpo
3. See AfD Debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EComXpo_(2nd_nomination) - decision was KEEP
4. Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_review#EComXpo - decision was endorse AfD decision (KEEP)

1. Seeking Help (Jehochman)
2. Seeking Help (Admin Durova)
3. Take a Step Back Proposal by xDanielx
4. Conflict of Interest Noticeboard contacted by me
5. Request for Mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/eComXpo by Cerejota (Rejected on 03 September, 2007, because Calton did not agree on a mediation)
6. Last proposal for resolution without mediation on my part (and using this document afterwards) (26 August, 2007)
7. Conflict of Interest Noticeboard 2nd notification on September 4, 2007, after the mediation request was rejected

1. Discussion with Calton in June about eComXpo article
2. Continued discussion with Calton in August (notified me about the speedy deletion flag. Nice)

Timeline

2007-08-12

• AfD initiated because of "db-repost" by RFerreira. He assumed that the article was recreated in the hope that it sticks. It became clear quickly that this was not the case. I created the article without knowing that there was an article (bad one), which was deleted the previous year.

• Cerejota : Speedy delete and close as per WP:CORP, Quote: "Speedy delete and close as per WP:CORP. No notability from reliable sources, out of 7 sources, 2 are press releases (the most unreliable of unreliable sources), another is from a website (WebMasterRadio.fm) affiliated (in the text of the article!) with this company, and yet another from the website of the guy who created the article in the first place. The other sources are from minor web publications focused on the industry. This page is not only a blatant advert, but basically WP:OR! Delete, we are not for WP:SOAPBOXing or for WP:OR. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)"

• 8 different editors voted keep. Next to Cerejota did only Calton vote for delete. Cerejota added comments to several votes, which were addressed and proven inaccurate or to vage. Especially his arguments that WP:CORP applies were adressed and dismissed by a number of editors:

Initiator

1. RFerreira

Delete votes

1. Cerejota
2. Calton *

Keep votes

1. Siva1979
2. Cumbrowski
3. yuckfoo
4. Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F
5. ALKIVAR
6. Burntsauce
7. Myles Long
8. bbx

Note: user Calton did not like the article and was involved with it a earlier. I had a discussion with him at the articles talk page and also at my user talk page. I believed that things were settled, but I guess they were not for Calton. He is not playing an active role in the dispute, except for the support of Cerejota whenever it is needed. This includes his votes during the AfD and DRV and keeping templates in the article that were placed there by Cerejota.

2007-08-13

• I disclosed in detail what my relationship with the trade show is. this AfD discussion (second "keep", last two comments).

2007-08-18

• Cerejota added COI template to article diff and "notability" "advert" templates (close to AfD end) diff

2007-08-19

• AfD closed: The result was keep

• AfD template removed from article. Also removed notability template, because that was addressed during the AfD diff

• less than 10 min later did Cerejota add the DRV template diff

2007-08-20

• Several hours later did Cerejota start the DRV. WP:CORP and WP:SOAPBOX arguments (again)
• 8 Endorsements, including from the editor RFerreira who initiated the AfD. Only overturn vote came from Calton again. Details:

Endorsement Votes for DRV*

1. Daniel J. Leivick
2. xDanielx
3. RFerreira **
4. Jreferee
5. Bridgeplayer
6. Seraphimblade
7. Sodium N4
8. Kevin Murray
9. Xoloz

Overturn Votes for DRV

1. Cerejota
2. Calton

Notes

*Note that none of the editors involved in the AfD that voted keep there participate in the DRV.

**Only the editor who did initiated the AfD voted again, but to keep the article and not to delete it.

I commented, but did not vote, because it was not anymore about what is right or wrong, but who is. The only two votes that endorse the deletion are the 2 editors who endorsed it during the AfD Calton and Cerejota.

Comment

• With the AfD not turning out in his favor (Opinion) and the deletion review started, did Cerejota believe to be in the position to start deleting masive content from the aticle.

Important

• The result of the 9 consecutive edits by Cerejota on 2007-08-20. (8 Edits between 18:25:48 and 22:21:31, one edit earlier to revert an edit of mine) (diff)
  • Notice the 13 "facts" templates and 2 "POVassertion" templates?
  • He also removed the section "Target audience", which I actually agree on as I stated on the articles talk page at a later time during the attempt to discuss the content of the article and the deletions that were made without having consensus.
  • Not having consensus might be the wrong word. Complete disagreement is more acurate. I did not engage in an edit war with the user, because I still assumed that he will be listening to the critisism of his actions. I don't agree with the reason stated Cerejota who deleted it with the claim that it is original research, what it is clearly not, but it is a duplication of content that is already part of the article itself (in the first paragraph).
  • He removed the reference to the ASP solution provider (http://www.inxpo.com inXpo virtual tradeshows) and flags the statement who the ASP solution provider is with the "facts" template. The reference was not using the <ref> tag. I mentioned that on the talk page as well. He removed the "facts" template, but did not add the reference back in as I suggested. I provided a better link that would have been more suitable to be used using the <ref> syntax.

Afterwards

• User Jreferee removed the templates from the article as per Quote: "Removed tags since issues resolved by AfD and otherwise do not seem directed to improving the article". Templates that were removed (diff ): {{notability|date=August 2007}}, {{advert}} , {{TotallyDisputed}}, {{unreliable|EComXpo}}, {{COI}}

2007-08-21

• Cerejota reverted edit by Jreferee with the argument: "please do not remove tags, COI is an open ongoing issue, perhaps notability is resolved by AfD, but that is under review" (diff)

• Ryulong reverted Cerejota reversal and added article to [[Category:Articles on deletion review]] , no edit summary (diff)

• Cerejota reverted Ryulong, no edit summary (diff)

• Ryulong reverted Cerejota, no edit summary (diff)

• Cerejota reverted Ryulong Quote: please do not revert withour discussion, there are multiple threads explaning this (diff Revision as of 2007-08-22T18:46:50)

2007-08-23

• XDanielx removes COI template Quote: see talk page (diff - Revision as of 2007-08-23T00:45:16)

• XDanielx removes notability, advert and TotallyDisputed template (diff - Revision as of 2007-08-23T01:28:49)
  • {{notability|date=August 2007}}
  • {{advert}}
  • {{TotallyDisputed}}

• removed "facts" from the first sentence that states: "what eComXpo is Obvious; trivial. The title of the page is "The Virtual Tradeshow for eCommerce Marketers."

• Re-Added reference to ASP solution provider: "Wikipedia is not a collection of links," but removing a link to the virtual trade show ASP EComXpo uses is ridiculous. Clearly high relevance."

• Cerejota removed reference to ASP solution provider: "irrelevant, no reliable source links the two" (diff) and then re-added the 4 templates: "tags remain" (diff)

• History Section removal by Cerejota: "removing unsourced or primary sourced content" (diff)

• Cerejota removes every single sentence where he placed a "facts" or "POVassertion" template, removed the see also section that refers to related content within Wikipedia Also removes [[Category:Articles on deletion review]] . Comment: "remove content that warrants the tags and the tags themselves, some sourcing is still required, and some sources are not reliable" (diff)

Summary of edits of that day

• 11 Changes: -3,648 Bytes in size (diff)

2007-08-24

Summary of edits of that day

• 3 Changes -691 bytes

• Cerejota changed "notable" template to "company-importance". Comment: "more specific tag" (diff)

• Cerejota removed wiki link to "panel discussions", comment: "wikilink to wrong topic - could link to Panel disamb, but even there there seems to be no relevant topic"

• Chaser removes Deletion Review template, comment: "rm drv tag; afd closure endorsed" (diff)

Step back proposal by xDanielx

• I started seeking for help [1] and [2]. Jehochman commented at the COI noticeboard, but admin Durova did not respond at all yet.

• I provided Cerejota and xDanielx with the details of what I did to seek help on 25 August 2007 (second last paragraph here) at the articles talk page that I did that. I stated on the 24. already the following: I contacted another editor and an admin who are both actively involved with the COI policy here at Wikipedia to determine if WP:COI applies to this case or not. I also asked for advice and help to find answers to the question, how to resolve the other obvious problems at hand and to determine, if the actions of User:Cerejota are in violation with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (such as vandalism) or not. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (also see here)

2007-08-25

Summary of edits of that day

• 5 Changes -138 bytes (diff)

• {{facts}} templates removed by Cerejota as I suggested and a little bit rephrasing, {{importance}} template removed as per AfD

• Cumbrowski RV edit by Cerejota and allegation of vandalism made (diff). RV Vandalism - See Talk Page why this is considered vandalism

Note that I reverted 3 edits of Cerejota, which I actually consider productive. However, I stated in the talk page that I can't just watch him do whatever he wants to do without even attempting to check, what other editors think about it. He removed over 3K of content from the article that was before his deletions of content improved with better references. At that point was it clear that the article has a low probability of being deleted. (diff and diff)

Talk Page diff for the 23. and 24. August

• see diff

Summmary

• Cerejota states that my COI is clearly established. xDanielx disputed that heavily.
• I pointed xDanielx to the AfD discussion and provided even more details about my involvement with the tradeshow, including my presentation and the panel recording and about the post from over 1 year ago at my personal blog that I used over a year later as reference in the article to describe how a virtual tradeshow is like. My post was not the only reference. There was also a reference to an exhibitor experience. See also my notes about that section of the article at the talk page.

• xDanielx's comments to every single template he removed from the article and why he did it.
• response by Cerejota with comments to the templates and also pointing to the pending DRV

During Deletion Frenzy

• Cerejota throws comment into the room: "I have fixed the article to the point I could remove some of the tags in good conscience. The COI tag remains, as is the notability and unverified. Thanks! "

• xDanielx: Step Back proposal, complaining about the deletion of the majority of the article without discussion (and during DRV btw)
• Cerejota argued WP:CORP (which was dismissed during the AfD and also about to get dismissed in the DRV, which is still running). Also: WP:SNOW
• xDanielx mentioned to Cerejota that he did a reasonable attempt of AGF: "I made every reasonable attempt to assume good faith and avoid ad hominems. It wasn't easy to keep my summary neutral in tone, given the (in my opinion) radically aggressive nature of your edits." and to WP:SNOW: "with in all fairness saying that the majority of them qualify as WP:SNOW edits is ludicrous"
• Cerejota claims: "I will always agree to mediation " and expects from xDanielx " Please do assume good faith. Thanks"

• Another comment by Cerejota thrown into the room: " have been searching and I still cannot find secondary source verification of notability, nor any of the sources provide this. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)"

• My comments, asking what he considers "secondary source verification of notability", since the regional and nationwide publications that are used as reference in the article are not good enough for him. Pointed out the edit behavior that includes the addition of the "facts" templates to then go and delete all the content. Specifically pointed to the ASP Solution provider reference (he removed facts template later, but kept reference deleted).I noted that I can not assume good faith under the current circumstances, unless he stops editing the article without discussing it at the talk page first. This is also when I warned him:

"I also discourage you very strongly from continuing with edits of this article until mediators will join us to resolve this dispute. Simply ignoring this and continue would hardly be considered a sign of willingness to respect a neutral opinion and to come to a consensus. I will also revert any edit from this point forward until the problem was decided upon. Those edits are considered vandalism and a sign of disrespect, not only disrespect of me, but the Wikipedia community as a whole (who established means for how to resolve this in a fair and civilized manner). "

• I notified everybody that the DRV was over and not in his favor.

2007-08-26

• no changes

• I started seeking help officially at the COI Noticeboard [3]

(Interesting that the Mediation page link to the noticeboard included "&oldid=153694075")

• Formal Request for Mediation initiated by Cerejota.

Note

Calton and Cerejota seem to be related to each other, because Cerejota obviously can't go anywhere without him. See my comments to Calton's participation in this and you might wonder also why Cerejota added him to the request for mediation.

Why I and xDanielx were added is obvious.

2007-08-27

• no changes

2007-08-28

• {{Unreliable}} and {{COI}} templates removed by Yuckfoo and then reverted by Calton

I don't even want to get started with what happens then, but I might have to... to be continued --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

2007-09-03

• Request of Mediation was rejected by User:Daniel because User:Calton did not agree on a mediation

Personal Note: this is a bit odd, but makes sense if looked at the general picture. It is transparent that user Calton supported user Cerejota from the beginning and even after the mediation request was made (see his edit on 2007-08-28). Making the mediation request fail prevents that an outsider looks at the article and the disputed content and avoids that Cerejotas edits might come under scrutiny and are being questioned. Cerejota would not have anything to gain from the mediation other than that his edits would be acknowledged as just and right. I tend to believe that this would not have happened, considering the opinions other editors already stated in this case. The failed mediation request on the other hand is helping cerejota, because he can point to his request as an attempt to solve the conflict and that it is not his fault that the request was rejected (what is true, technically). He did not use this argument yet, but I would not be surprised if he will eventually use it, if he believes that there is the right time for it. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-09-04

• 2nd Request for review of the COI accusations made against me regarding the article eComXpo at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

(Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#eComXpo_COI_Accusation_-_Request_for_Relief)

--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-09-10

• COI Noticeboard states that COI does not apply in this case, POV maybe, but not COI. (User:Jehochman). p.s. User:Burntsauce removed COI template from the article on September 8, 2007.

--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-09-13

1. Cerejota deletes the list of dates of past and future occurence of the eComXpo events with edit sumary: "removed unsoruced, non-notable information" diff
2. Cerejota deletes complete paragraph "Revenue Model" from the article with edit summary: "remove original research" diff
3. Cerejota deletes "Official Website" paragraph and link to eComXpo with edit summary "redundant with infobox" diff

2007-09-21

I noticed the deletes by Cerejota and reverted each one individually. I provided a short explanation in the edit summary and provided a detailed explanation at the article talk page. Link to diff, because it might becomes broken up if cerejota engages in a discussion (diff). I also notified cerejota on his user talk page that I did the reversals and referred to my detailed explaination. I only did it to make sure that he will read my arguments first and engage in a discussion rather than starting "act" without talking (before). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)