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

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

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

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

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

=Notes by arbitrators =

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

= Evidence =

Tom Cruise Purple (March 2010)

 * 17 March 2010, DYK.
 * Sources:
 * Usenet
 * Gallery of the Absurd
 * E Online
 * Circus Hour
 * Gawker Gossip Roundup
 * Radar Online
 * ,

Santorum (neologism) (May 2011)

 * SPS:, 1971 novel that misspelt "sanctorum".
 * Reintroduced.
 * "Gonzo Crosswords", "Geek Limerick Contest", ,.
 * Background:.

Werner Erhard (book) (September 2009)

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

Knight and Day (June 2010)

 * Tom Cruise film, made $150m profit..


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


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

Santorum (neologism) (May 2011)

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

Dan Fefferman (November 2009)

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

Julia Moon (December 2009)

 * DYK 26 December. Hatchet job.


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

List of Scientologists (June 2010)
SPS:
 * 11 June 2010. 8 December 2010.
 * 11 June 2010.
 * 16 June 2010 (Usenet, website of topic-banned Wikipedian.

Meade Emory (October 2010)

 * ..

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (November 2010)

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

Tom Cruise (2006–)
Main contributor:


 * (2 DYK hooks)
 * (DYK)
 * (DYK)
 * (DYK)
 * (Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)) (TFA in 2008)
 * (film did poorly)
 * (film did poorly)
 * (film did poorly)
 * (film did poorly)
 * (film did poorly)

Generally mocking/negative.

Other

 * Non-neutral editing, especially politicians' bios before elections: Requests_for_comment/Cirt, DGG's comments.  –   –    –.
 * WP:Wikibombing (SEO):.
 * Landmark Education: reverting sourced additions as vandalism:    . Similar:.
 * Mountains/molehills (ex-Scientologists movie):, , , ,.


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


 * ,, . OTRS

Mace-Kingsley Ranch School (November 2009)

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

Aaron Saxton (March 2010)

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

WP:BLP problems from the RFC User:Cirt
Here are some more BLP problems from the Requests for comment/Cirt:


 * Cirt included Gloria Gaynor ( (see BLPN), Jada Pinkett-Smith (talk page discussion) and Chaka Khan in List of Scientologists, based on poor and/or misrepresented sources. All three were removed after community discussion.

User:Cirt's WP:OWN problems

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


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

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

 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive644


 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive649


 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive656

User:Cirt's NPOV coatracking violations
User:Cirt created this attacking coat-rack - List of deaths related to Scientology - it directed blame for deaths on the Scientology organization when there was only "claims" of association. User:Cirt created most of it on the 26th May 2010

Here is what User:Cirt created

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

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

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

Interpersonal relationships of User:Jayen466 and User:Cirt
Other members of the community have found Jayen's interactions with Cirt disruptive.  as well as bordering on wikihounding

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

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

Other Evidence
mailing list discussion on the Santorum (neologism) article.

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


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


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

Cirt's manner of responding to edit disagreements

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


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


 * Similarly:, , , . Reversions and warnings to an IP, where in context the IP's edits were not clear vandalism, and WP:BRD would have been appropriate.

Cirt's manner of responding to dispute resolution

 * : Cirt's entire response to Requests for comment/Cirt. I asked for elaboration:, but received no response from Cirt.

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

Jayen's manner of interacting with Cirt

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


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

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

Jayen's interesting insights into Cirt's BLP editing
From the RfC/U talk page:, , , : "@Tryptofish: Yes, that is correct. I believe Cirt is a fine editor outside these topic areas."

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

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


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


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

Evidence presented by Cla68

 * Coatrack concerns at Death of Philip Gale. Cirt added most of the material in question, including edit warring at times.  It could be that some of the editors with which he was edit-warring were later banned for editing on behalf of the Scientology organization.  If so, it appears that this is a case of taking two to tango:                    .  It was in January 2011 that editors NuclearWarfare, Collect, Scott MacDonald, Griswaldo, and Jayen466, among others, noticed what was going on and fixed the article:


 * Jamie Sorrentini- Puffery, WP:OWN, and edit warring: Cirt builds article, Scott MacDonald tries to correct some concerns (Scott's summary of issues), Cirt revert wars, then gives Scott a hard time about it   Noticeboard thread then backs off
 * More concerning Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System- Cirt attempted to poison the well on a newbie editor (MLKLewis) with which he disagreed. Cirt had posted the two warnings in question on the editor's talk page.  The diffs in question are  and .  MLKLewis later explained what took place.  Cirt had revert warred MLKLewis' edits, but did not mention plagarism in his edit summary.  One month later, Cirt petitioned an admin to take action against MLKLewis, referring to the account as an "SPA."  MLKLewis remains a fairly active editor, his/her edits do not appear to support the characterization of "SPA", and the account's block log is clear.  I think most editors would be very concerned to find out that an editor who disagreed with them was soliciting other admins to sanction them.
 * In my opinion, this particular ArbCom case was unnecessary. Cirt had not been given a chance to show that he had learned from the comments and feedback in the RfC.  Also, Jayen has appropriately followed the dispute resolution process and it has worked as it was designed to work.  Therefore, no interaction ban between Cirt and Jayen is necessary.  Note that Jayen did not request this case.  I do believe that ArbCom intervention would be appropriate in the case of some of Cirt's defenders, but that is not in the scope of this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bridge (2006 drama)
Cirt can be precipitous, but is constructively industrious in this topic area.
 * Cirt was at first seemingly destructive, going so far as to propose deletion which I must admit alarmed me, as a gradual contributor to the article. However, the same day Cirt completely rehabilitated the article with a number of sources, some of which I may never have found.
 * Cirt can be occasionally dogged in pursuit of perceived "policy violations" of, for example, WP:NOR here, discussed here, where the "vio" merited collaborative rehabilitation with rewording and footnoting rather than summary deletion. In the end, the matter was resolved courteously.
 * All my other occasional interactions with Cirt have been positive.
 * If I had any advice for Cirt, it would be to refrain from acting on first impulses, then proceed apace with second impulses; this approach, when I have remembered it, has served me well. --Lexein (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466's removal of cited information from Werner Erhard with deceptive edit summaries
With an edit summary of "add detail, restructure" he removed all discussion of Erhard's participation in Esalen seminars along with the associated reference.

With an edit summary of "description of seminar" he removed a paragraph concerning a reported (and referenced) 1971 revelation and the associated evolution of Erhard's philosophy. This paragraph had been discussed on the talk page previously, but Jayen466 did not participate in that discussion nor initiate a new one.

Jayen466's diversion of normal talk page discussion in order to attack Cirt on matters unrelated
See this exchange.

Users have left the project following Jayen466's use of adversarial wikiprocesses
Jayen466 alleged a 3RR violation by User:Atomaton here. Atomaton rebutted the allegation, and the report was closed as no violation. Jayen466 continued to argue, but found no support. Atomaton's last edit was a few weeks later, on March 9, 2011.

Jayen466 was involved with an RFC concerning User:Timneu22. There was a discussion on Jayen466's page in which Jayen466 responds to Timneu22's declaration of intent to stop editing with condescension and disbelief. Four days later, Timneu22's final edit asks Jayen "What the hell are you accusing me of now?".

Jayen466's involvement in off-wiki harassment of Cirt

 * Jayen466 was involved in a systematic off-wiki harassment campaign mounted by, who was banned from the Scientology topic area in December 2010 . Between July 2010–April 2011 DC (posting as "Carbuncle") repeatedly posted threads about Cirt on Wikipedia Review, , ], including monthly "Cirt's Scientology edits" threads on Wikipedia Review , , , . Jayen466 (posting as "HRIP7") participated repeatedly in all but one DC thread and many others about Cirt besides.
 * Jayen466 could not have been unaware of DC's explicitly stated intention to drive Cirt from the topic area by systematically dogging his edits. DC stated this at the outset: "I am intending to do a monthly thread here about Cirt's Scientology edits, because I would like to help them kick their nasty habit. Cirt, I don't say this in a mean way, but when you edit articles related to Scientology, it makes your fingers and breath smell like Scientology. And no one wants to kiss someone whose breath smells like Scientology." Jayen466 posted eight times in the thread in which DC made that statement in the first post.
 * Jayen466, like DC, repeatedly highlighted entirely legitimate and proper edits by Cirt, even at one point admitting that an article he had highlighted was "well-written": e.g., (getting the facts wrong), ,
 * To the best of my knowledge, at no point did Jayen466 dispute any of those edits or articles or use any dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia concerning any of those articles.
 * Policy pointers: acting to "singl[e] out one or more editors ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" is categorically prohibited as Wikihounding, a form of harassment. Off-wiki harassment "creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith" and constitutes "admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases".

Evidence presented by Cirt
I apologize for presenting evidence so late: RL circumstances out of town have restricted my WP activities over the past month.

I’m astonished by the length and intensity of complaints. They involve a portion of my editing over the past few years to do with new religious movements and political BLPs. Many editors have raised valid concerns, including poor sourcing practices, the inclusion of undue negative weight in these topics, and canvassing by posting to multiple user talk pages about ongoing concerns.

I’ve reflected on my past behavior and I realize that these complaints have some validity. I agree that my sourcing practices were inadequate, and that I’ve unwisely included undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs. I think the accusations of canvassing are less valid: there’s a case that I’ve posted on multiple talk pages to seek advice and help from admins about Jayen466’s wikihounding, but this is at the bottom end of the spectrum set out at wp:canvass. Yes, I’ve emailed a user to warn them of potential bias by another user, but again, this is on the mild end of what could be construed as canvassing under the policy.

On the matter of DYKs I’d like to emphasize that it had been a past practice of mine to nominate all eligible articles I’d created or improved as DYK candidates. I’ve since stated I won’t be contributing to the DYK process in the future. I regret the inference that I have engaged in promotional editing; this was not my intention, although I realize how unwise I was to create the impression of this.

This case, and the previous RfC and RFAR, have been a learning experience for me, and I’ve already stated at those forums that I’ve withdrawn from the areas in which my editing has been at issue. I undertake to edit in good faith to benefit the project, and to be sensitive to any complaints that might arise concerning my editing.

Under the circumstances, I believe the following remedies are appropriate, taken from Cbrick77’s entry at the Workshop page.
 * 1) A topic ban from editing articles about new religious movements or their members, and political BLPs, broadly construed.
 * 2) An interaction ban between Cirt and Jayen466, comprising the six points listed by Cbrick77.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior statements
 * 10 July 2011 – My statement at the RFAR
 * 28 June 2011 – RFC/U response statement
 * 15 June 2011 – My statement at previous, unsuccessful RFAR

The issues with Cirt's editing are long-standing and well-known
I have no doubt that I could find examples of editors attempting to constructively engage with Cirt about the very same issues that have precipitated this case. I actually did attempt to look for examples of such discussions on the user talk pages of Cirt's earlier accounts, but they have been deleted. My search did turn up a comment that I feel encapsulates the issue and should serve as a reminder of just how long this has actually been an issue. Four and a half years ago, User:Sm1969 had this to say: ""I think Smee has really figured out how to game the system. Smee does escalating outrageous behaviour, gets called on it, and then Smee becomes unbelievably contrite and promises not to do it again and portrays herself as the victim of personal attacks; the diffs always speak otherwise. We go through Smee's contrition cycles and there is little administrative record of Smee's misconduct, particularly so if different Admins get involved. Give it about a month and Smee is right back on the same articles again. Few people have the time and wherewithall to challenge Smee, and those that do leave no record because of the contrition cycles, so over 15,000 edits by Smee have accumulated taking Wikipedia in a very slanted direction--not neutral, not accurate and not informative"."

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

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

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