Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cirt

Edit count for Cirt
User:Cirt

run at Mon Sep 8 20:38:21 2008 GMT

Category talk:        6 Category:             165 Image talk:           57 Image:                324 Mainspace             13647 MediaWiki talk:       2 Portal talk:          1024 Portal:               7240 Talk:                 4003 Template talk:        401 Template:             832 User talk:            4610 User:                 350 Wikipedia talk:       1168 Wikipedia:            4120 avg edits per page    4.15 earliest              07:58, 22 September 2007 number of unique pages 9135 total                 37949

2007/9 37   2007/10 3758   2007/11 4084   2007/12 5216   2008/1  6675   2008/2  3168   2008/3  2927   2008/4  3025   2008/5  1298   2008/6  1723   2008/7  1460   2008/8  3261   2008/9  1317

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 747 [2]Project Chanology 350 [3]A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant 329 [4]Battlefield Earth (film) 305 [5]1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack 244 [6]The Joy of Sect 243 [7]The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power 232 [8]Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography 222 [9]Lord of the Universe 217 [10]Trapped in the Closet (South Park) 213 [11]Operation Clambake 203 [12]Est and The Forum in popular culture 185 [13]Semi-Tough 184 [14]Jason Beghe 167 [15]The Last Temptation of Krust 155 [16]List of Scientologists

Talk: 580 [17]Project Chanology 115 [18]1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack 77 [19]Battlefield Earth (film) 61 [20]Scientology 60 [21]Lord of the Universe 59 [22]The Joy of Sect 58 [23]Hell Is Other Robots 54 [24]Trapped in the Closet (South Park) 50 [25]Cult Awareness Network 49 [26]Xenu 48 [27]A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant 44 [28]Leo Ryan 44 [29]Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography 43 [30]Prem Rawat 40 [31]Lions for Lambs

Category talk: 3 [32]American criminals

Category: 7 [33]Wikipedia Featured Content contributors 5 [34]Scientology and the Internet 5 [35]Scientology portal 5 [36]Journalism portal 4 [37]Wikipedia Featured Topic contributors 4 [38]Scientology 4 [39]Large Group Awareness Training 4 [40]The Simpsons portal 4 [41]Manson Family in popular culture 3 [42]Christian countercult movement 3 [43]Wikipedia Featured Article contributors 3 [44]Wikipedia Featured Portal contributors 3 [45]Waco Siege 3 [46]Comedy portal 3 [47]Theatre articles by quality

Image: 9 [48]ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg 7 [49]The Simpsons 5F10.png 7 [50]Outrageous Betrayal.jpg 6 [51]Be travolta 100px.jpg 5 [52]South Park Xenu.jpg 5 [53]Lord of the Universe video cover.jpg 5 [54]Cmonjews.jpg 5 [55]Anonymousexposed rickroll.JPG 4 [56]South Park Scientology grafitti.jpg 4 [57]Xenu BBC Panorama.jpg 4 [58]Lost Our Lisa.PNG 4 [59]Tom Cruise An Unauthorized Biography by Andrew Morton.jpg 4 [60]South Park and Philosophy Robert Arp.jpg 4 [61]2008 01 25 Scientology site error message.jpg 4 [62]Sea org.png

Image talk: 15 [63]ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg 3 [64]Xenu BBC Panorama.jpg 2 [65]A Very Merry Unauthorized Childrens Scientology Pageant.jpg 2 [66]Scientology Task Force of the Hamburg Interior Authority logo.jpg 2 [67]Fso prices4.png 2 [68]Gabe Cazares.gif 2 [69]Religion Inc..gif 2 [70]A Piece of Blue Sky.jpg 2 [71]Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png 2 [72]Messiah or Madman.jpg 2 [73]Bare faced Messiah.jpg 2 [74]Xenu nip-tuck.jpg 2 [75]Scientology The Now Religion.gif 2 [76]Inside Scientology.jpg 2 [77]Sea org.png

MediaWiki talk: 2 [78]Watchlist-details

Portal: 97 [79]Film 85 [80]Journalism 79 [81]Comedy 79 [82]Textile Arts 76 [83]Journalism/Selected quote 76 [84]Criminal justice 75 [85]Comedy/Did you know 72 [86]Norway 66 [87]Television 65 [88]Scientology 60 [89]Internet 55 [90]The Simpsons 50 [91]Oregon 39 [92]Feminism 38 [93]Russia

Portal talk: 110 [94]Textile Arts 77 [95]Oregon 64 [96]Scientology 62 [97]The Simpsons 44 [98]Feminism/Selected article 43 [99]Film/Did you know 38 [100]Norway 38 [101]Textile Arts/Selected picture 28 [102]Textile Arts/Selected quote 26 [103]Television 24 [104]Journalism 23 [105]Film 23 [106]Russia 22 [107]Journalism/Selected quote 22 [108]Comedy

Template: 171 [109]Did you know/Next update 44 [110]Scientology 39 [111]Religion in South Park 34 [112]GA number 27 [113]OBIE Plays 24 [114]Scientology and the Internet 22 [115]Scientology in popular culture 21 [116]Werner Erhard 17 [117]LRH 14 [118]Project Chanology protests, February 10, 2008 14 [119]Oregon Modern History 13 [120]Manson Family 12 [121]Cults 11 [122]South Park 10 [123]Oregon Pioneer History

Template talk: 238 [124]Did you know 22 [125]Scientology in popular culture/Archive 1 19 [126]Project Chanology protests, February 10, 2008 18 [127]In the news 16 [128]Scientology 7  [129]Scientology and the Internet 6  [130]Talkarchivenav 5  [131]Cults 5  [132]Religion in The Simpsons 5  [133]Osho movement 5  [134]Religion in South Park 4  [135]Film 4  [136]WikiProject Russia 4  [137]Project Chanology protests, March 15, 2008 3  [138]Infobox Film

User: 105 [139]Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations 44 [140]Cirt/Userboxes 32 [141]Cirt/monobook.js   28  [142]Durova/Triple crown winner's circle 19 [143]Cirt/top 18 [144]Cirt/DYK 13 [145]Cirt/Recognition 12 [146]Wikinews Importer Bot 10 [147]Lightmouse/wishlist 9  [148]Cirt 5  [149]Xihix 3  [150]Ral315 3  [151]Deckiller/FAC urgents 2  [152]Misou 2  [153]Makoshack

User talk: 264 [154]Cirt/Archive 3 253 [155]Cirt 144 [156]RichardF 93 [157]Ctjf83 90 [158]Scorpion0422 85 [159]Durova 76 [160]Wikipediatrix 66 [161]SandyGeorgia 62 [162]ChrisO 49 [163]Misza13 43 [164]Qst 43 [165]Ayla 40 [166]Aboutmovies 38 [167]Xihix 32 [168]John Carter

Wikipedia: 151 [169]Good article nominations 104 [170]Today's featured article/requests 95 [171]WikiProject Scientology/AFD 88 [172]Requests for page protection 78 [173]Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Old 72      [174]Featured article candidates/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power 61 [175]Featured article candidates/The Joy of Sect 60 [176]List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations 55 [177]Articles for deletion/Project Chanology 54 [178]Good articles 53 [179]Administrator intervention against vandalism 52 [180]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 49 [181]Featured article candidates/The Last Temptation of Krust 49 [182]Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub/archive1 49 [183]WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive/Season 9

Wikipedia talk: 127 [184]Did you know 114 [185]WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive/Season 9 105 [186]WikiProject The Simpsons 94 [187]WikiProject Scientology 68 [188]WikiProject Oregon 62 [189]Good topics 44 [190]Featured portal candidates 34 [191]List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations 32 [192]Featured topic criteria 28 [193]Featured topic criteria/Good topics plan 27 [194]WikiProject Films 26 [195]Featured articles with citation problems 21 [196]WikiProject Comedy 20 [197]WikiProject Russia 16 [198]WikiProject Good articles

If there were any problems, please [199]email Interiot or post at  [200]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

Note
Before username change
 * 4 blocks for 3RR: 8 hours, 24 hours, 24 hours, 3 hours.

After username change
 * 3 blocks for 3RR. 48 hours, 72 hours, 24 hours.  Most recent block June 2007.

Cirt (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cirt. — Athaenara  ✉  04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Over a year old... IMHO... a non-issue...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only 2 blocks exceed 24 hours and it was long time ago. No concerns. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And on three occasions that I found spending about 10 minutes looking (ie, not very much effort) he was reported for 3RR and could have been blocked, but the closing admin opted for other alternatives. 10 violations of 3RR for an admin?  That's a heckuva lot.  Bottom line - if someone applied for adminship with 7 entries in the block log, they wouldn't get very much support at all.  --B (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with B's opinion. His block is a big issue not to become an admin. His last block one year ago is not that old history. Besides, he was accused as a prolific POV pusher just 7 months ago. I doubt that every people who vote for support know this fact.(people tend to skip to read the whole discussion and question on AFDs)--Caspian blue (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is formed in 2001. So the "maximum" possible is 7 years. Now what will be your definition of "old history"? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then by the definition of you and people who support Curt, Wikipedia has the damn old history. Some people like you have no concern about his past, but I do--Caspian blue (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cross-examination of oppose voters
This thing is pretty obviously going to succeed *shrug*, so why is it necessary to question every oppose voter at length? If the nominee wants to come back at any critics, fine. But Durova personally running about trying to own this thing is a little unseemly, and unnecessary. It looks like "don't oppose unless you want a fight". Durova, please let the community comment and don't take it all so personally. Some folk have issues with an ex-Scientology edit-warrior, who's got history, multiple blocks, and involvement in an arbcom case, being adminned, and some don't due to reasonable service since. Both views are perfectly understandable philosophies - let them speak for themselves.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto... overly aggressive defenses of the candidate actually look bad on the candidate... it gives the opposes weight.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 08:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize. It's a bit hard to know what to say when someone claims in public that I've deleted an entire account history, when actually I haven't done anything like that.  You're right about philosophies.  Durova Charge! 09:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You did delete the account's talk page archive - which is perhaps what that "someone" means (or maybe not? only an admin can find out how many edits you deleted - maybe few indeed). But to be honest, I fear the secrecy motif is a bit counterproductive - any half-decent "sleuth" can uncover the entire history (even without an admin account) just by following the leads in your nomination. If Cirt really needed to disassociate himself from his previous usernames, he should not perhaps have immediately used his new account to return to editing the same contentious Scientology articles, right after the Scientology RfARb. The irony here that whilst wikipedians can't know the previous usernames, anyone with any malicious intent to harass Cirt WILL find them just as easily as I did. If Cirt's identity is so important he should not have sought the scrutiny inherent in RfA, and certainly not in the "trust me, but don't ask, hush hush" way this has been handled. I fear it invites curiosity - it did mine. And no, I will not post the information which I uncovered - although it is plainly not hard to find.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I do rather agree with Troikoalogo. I think it was inadvisable for Cirt not to have revealed his previous identities. Because, despite what people such as Justallofthem want to suggest, in fact he has not made much of an effort to hide them. So those who may be intent on doing Cirt or others ill are hardly prevented from doing so; while everyone else is merely left rather confused, and perhaps perturbed. Meanwhile, many of us are happy to vote for Cirt even knowing his previous history. I'm not sure there's anything much to hide. Of course, I may be missing something key here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and vote stacking
Note the opposes by



May be worth a checkusering to see who is playing abusive games? rootology ( C )( T ) 21:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Already initiated, but I didn't post here yet, because the check has not been done yet. Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway Jehochman Talk 21:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the blocks from the CU and Rootology did the RFA clean up. I still am convinced there is canvassing go on in this RFA. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a new post from an IP address. Whois places it at a public library near Seattle.  Durova Charge! 23:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Issaquah, Washington, public library. I'll add it to the RFCU. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing template
I see someone has added the notavote template to the project page, which is the first time I see it in an RFA. Is there a concern hat there is canvassing going on? If so, by whom? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a concern. Rlevse expressed a concern (see his comment immediately above), and so did I.  You could ask him to review the template and remove it if he thinks it is not appropriate. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman and a couple others have decided that it is their job to vet every oppose vote and if they don't like the looks of it to post it at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway in violation of the policy listed on the RFCU page. Talk about chilling effect. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to say, even as an oppose voter, that I can recognise the abuse here of socks and meets - but then I discovered that he's asked for a checkuser on me! Jehochman, you just needed to ask me - not sneak about. Yes, this is a new account of an established user - never hidden the fact. It is the only account I am now using, and it is some months old. If you really need to know who I am, please just e-mail me, tell me why you want to know, and ask.--Troikoalogo (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's obviously something fishy going on in this RfA and I think Jehochman is entirely correct in trying to find out what is going on. Everybody deserves to have the Wikipedia community as a whole evaluate their adminship chances, instead of being side-swiped by some disgruntled user or group. henrik  • talk  15:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree. I supported sock checks on inactive accounts that just turned up here. That's fishy, so go and fish about. Obviously there's been some abuse - which even good faith oppose voters will condemn - but fishing about just because people oppose, and asking for a checkuser on an account like mine that's obviously in use, without questioning me first, is going to far - and a waste of checkuser energy. The case against me was "he acts suspiciously like a more experienced user" - well, yes. I am.  So?--Troikoalogo (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Troikoalogo's view. Hell, anybody looking into my contribs can see that I did participate in RfAs before. Then I had a break because of real life problems, and because, honestly, I'm pissed off of the hard handed, POV-pushing fight about articles here. I did only post some smaller edits as an IP during my breaks, but this certainly doesn't constitute sockpuppeting. From my point of view, the accusations that Jehochman is launching here against Troikalogo and me, based on such ridiculously "evidence", amounts to harrassment. He certainly wouldn't have done that if I voted "support", and imho this is interference with the RfA process. Afaik there are guidelines that say that checkusing shouldn't be done when the outcome isn't at stake. But looking at the long list of supporters, the outcome is clear. No, sry, but imho Jehochman crossed the line here. Gray62 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this but what else would one expect? Secrets lead to lies and distortions on all sides and are antithetical to open systems like wikipedia. Fortunately, one bad RfA won't destroy wikipedia, whatever the outcome, but perhaps the people going after the oppose votes should try to think about why there is opposition rather than getting upset about it. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think that Durova-Jehochman's team work against only "opposers" are clearly not from good faith. Supporters' suspicions over a Seattle IP user who just left his/her opinion at the "neutral" section which does not affect the !vote count is even ridiculous. The accusation without proper evidences and request for checkuser on users after socks were found are also contradictory to the protection for Curt's past accounts.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall we now start looking into the edit histories of all the support !votes? Certainly not, but keeping attacking each oppose !vote is getting out of hand. I could easily come up with a list of support !votes which this is the first RFA that they ever commented on.... if we want to add more drama, we could, but I see this to be totally unnecessary. Jeochman, give it up and relax. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say, YES. If there's conspicioun about fraud here, check ALL votes. Everything else will look like discrimination and pressurizing editors to vote the "right" way. Gray62 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, help me scan all the votes, top to bottom, and list any that look like they could be socks, with a brief explanation and diffs. Then we'll get help from Checkuser. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sry, but after just being acquitted as a victim of your witchhunt, I'm not very enthusiastic about being part in the next one. But I will come back to your offer if I will ever have serious, based suspiciouns about an RfA, thx. Gray62 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, how about we follow the advice on the RFCU page: "Vote fraud, ongoing vote - Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Suspected sock puppets" instead of engaging in witch hunts. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)The only one I'm aware of on the support side is Z00r. I contacted him/her myself (see the user talk page) and sent word to a bureaucrat. Please refrain from conjectures such as victim of your witchhunt or Durova-Jehochman's team work against only "opposers" are clearly not from good faith: what is bad faith is to assert such things when the facts don't bear them out. Any conspiracy theory would have to explain Rootology's involvement--surely if any strings were being pulled I'd have had my own ED bio scrubbed before dragging him over here. Occam's razor leads to the obvious conclusion: Cirt is an exceptionally qualified candidate and the opportunity to give him the tools brings together people who don't normally agree on other matters. As with the Everyking RFA, I welcome scrutiny on both sides. Regards, Durova Charge! 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova, that is true that you and Jehochman are tag-teaming to the fishing expedition. That is clearly bad faith activities. At least several people here consider the accusation as such. I don't need to refrain anything in this toxic situation. While 5 votes by socks are struck (too bad), you and his accusations against 3 editors in good standing turn out to be false. We don't know whether socks exist in supporter' side. There is a high chance to have given that Curt has either enthusiastic fans and opponents in the past. The scrutiny on one side and harsh badgering are really not helpful for the candidate but rather arouse more distrust toward his past identities Why don't you refrain yourself first? Regards. FYI, I did not know Curt before the RfA and have not any interest in Scientology, but your nomination caught my attention.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The checkusers are well qualified to determine whether something is a fishing expedition, and if we suppose that the RFCU that turned up so many confirmed socks already constitutes one (it doesn't seem to), then it really wouldn't be possible for me to be part of a 'tag-team' on a request where I haven't posted at all. The only RFCU associated with this case where I posted at all was the one filed by an opposer, and I endorsed his request.  If this isn't enough to place my actions above suspicion, then I don't know what is.  Let's join together in asking the pertintent questions: why is all this socking occurring and how can we keep this RFA clean?  Durova Charge! 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the whole RFCU procedure was bad activities. The false accusation against Troikoalogo, Gray62 and others are bad enough to be called "fishing expedition" though. Jehochman has been contributing to RFCU and SSP a lot and he is an admin and you are an ex-admin. So naturally, checkusers tend to listen to your opinion than the accused people's.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note, I *don't* edit ED. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop this nonsense with so many checkusers on such thin suspicions. The atmosphere of a witchhunt, especially directed at the oppose votes, does not befit an RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @Root--you don't? Apologies then; shows how much I know.  And @Nsk92, 5 votes have already been stricken due to confirmed checkuser results.  The first checkuser request was filed by an opposer.  Supporters have just as much right to request it.  I would hope that honest opposers would welcome scrutiny as much as the honest supporters do: in order to uphold mutual faith in the integrity of the system and to distance ourselves from any misconduct that other people perpetrate.  Durova Charge! 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. I feel like I am back in Russia in 1937. The fact that there were 5 sockpuppets does not mean that it is OK to start checkusering everybody in the oppose camp on the flimsiest of suspicions. I have read the "evidence" Jehochman presented against User:Troikoalogo in Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway and I thought it was pretty absurd. In fact, same for User:Gray62. You and Jehochman really need to cool it here. I have never seen such an agressive attack on the oppose camp in an RfA before. Talk about a chilling effect. Nsk92 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never seen so much socking at an RFA before. More than 50% of the checks I've run have come up confirmed. Please moderate the rhetoric and look at the facts. Also, if you disagree with me, please don't take it out on the candidate. Cirt has no control whatsoever over my actions. I've been to Russia many times, and this is not similar.  For one thing, we don't have any vodka here (yet).  Or Пельмени. Jehochman Talk 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make you guys jealous but I'm hoping to have Pelmeni (with smetana) for tea and I'm sure I can find a the best part of a bottle of stolly in the cupboard somewhere if the empty bottle is upsetting you. What's missing is the champanskoe but that's probably another story. Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been to Russia many times. Hey. I've been to Alaska and seen Russia so don't talk to me about Russia! (This is a joke!) Lighten up you guys and enough with this fighting. The fact is that this is an RfA with over 80% support votes. What exactly are you guys fretting about? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alaska is Russia. I am fretting about that bottle to the right.  It appears to be empty. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone chill out. I'm looking into both supports and opposes. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does this RFA attract sockpuppets?
In response to Durova, the answer is very simple; Dishonesty attracts another dishonesty. If Cirt is honest about his past and you and other admins would not try so hard to cover his past identities in this inherently warranted "open" discussion on the candidate's past, the current situation would not be like this. You and Jehochman think so okay to "out" some of opposers with the RFCU. However, Cirt's secret identities are acceptable because you know him and got help from him while others can't because you know know them. How good faith you have shown!--Caspian blue (talk)

Because people are passionate about Scientology, on both sides of the fence. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing?
Even after I have been aquitted from the accusation of sockpuppetry, Jehochman still accuses me of taking part in canvassing. This is ridiculous! While I'm aware that there's reason to believe that some canvassing happened, Jehochman seems to confuse the evidence. Let's try to look at this from a neutral point of view: Here we have a candidate with a good record, but a questionable background surrounded by secrecy. But still, in almost exactly 24 hours after the nomination has been posted here, 98 editors support the candidate, many of them enthusiastically, nobody showing any concern. Only then, the very first "oppose" vote shows up. Well, we had some record numbers in RfA participation in the past, but I still think this is remarkable. A sign of canvassing? Maybe. But certainly not on the "oppose" side. Gray62 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One other point: I've taken part in RfAs regularly in the past, as evident in my contribs and on my talk page. Nobody should be surprised that I eventually show up here again. Why am I accused of canvassing, but not a single one of those editors on the "support" side who obviously (check the diffs!) never showed much interest in this process? Really, what is the standard applied here? And, btw, why is that template only placed in this RfA, and not in others? Gray62 (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went through a bot generated list of all the votes and carefully checked about 20 that looked suspicious. These included several that were already blocked for socking, or already checked and shown to be apparently legitimate.  As a result of that research, I checkusered two additional accounts, both supporters, and they came back negative. I think the current status of this RFA is basically clean, except maybe for a bit of canvassing. I regret the inconvenience to good faith editors who may have been "caught in the crossfire".  When somebody comes back from a nine month wikibreak, and perhaps unknowingly steps into the middle of a messy RFA with lots of socking, that situation is just a coincidence.  That's why we have checkuser: to check situations that look suspicious, but might be completely innocuous.  Jehochman Talk 20:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that equal scrutiny is applied to both sides. Now. Thx. Gray62 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That template has been used in other RFAs. I'm looking into both supports and opposes. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rlevse. A look into many editors that do not usually participate in RFA discussions would be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

70 ~ 80% support is general cutline but what about this case?
I really wonder how the bureaucrat close the unusual case with so many dramas. The RfA started off from the dishonesty, and unfairness due to the candidate's unwillingness to disclose his previous accounts in public. Voters are only seeing his achievement in one year and the rest are covered under shadow. His reasoning for the secrecy is his privacy concern, which is just self-contradictory for his claim as exposing himself in the brightest spot where everything related to the candidate should be evaluated. I get to know who he was with some research on his FA/GA articles, while I had no interaction with Cirt or no contribution to Scientology related articles. Therefore, editors who have confronted Cirt before definitely would already figure out who he is. The guessing does not require any magic or canvassing. If the alleged canvassing is so evident, why sockpuppeters risk themselves to do such dumb thing? Simply to say, Cirt has been suspected to be the same POV pusher with the previous accounts and he never denied it but Durova and Jehochman denounced such people having "a big obsession". So in this circumstance, if the RfA is closed just like any other RfAs, well, it would be also unfair as well.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should engage in any speculation about how this RfA will be closed. Let's just wait and see, I for my part have great faith that our crats are capable of judging it correctly.  So Why  11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I respect 'crats' judgment, RfAs on the borderline always causes big and unnecessary dramas later, so I just want to know the guideline on this peculiar case.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It will create such drama anyway, no matter whether it is successful or not. There is imho nothing but more drama to gain by discussing the "guideline" of this RfA in advance (and I do not think it should be disclosed by the crats even if there was one - it would just influence people).
 * But why should there be any other guidelines then with all other RfAs? I do not think there will. 70-80% support is just a rule of thumb. A 50% RfA can pass and a 90% RfA can fail regardless of such rules. I am sure you have the best intentions but I just fear that such a discussion now will not be helpful. Just my opinion of course...  So Why  13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be true in theory. In practice, it has never happened. Another admin has been reviewing old RfAs recently and notes that, of 2000 or so he has reviewed, only a dozen or so came in below the 75% mark. Many of those involve some of our most controversial administrators. Myself, I think that consideration should be given to another metric: the number of opposes crossing a certain threshold, regardless of number of !votes cast. I'd put that threshhold somewhere around 40-45 opposes; excluding those who had previously had a successful RfA and had given up the bit (voluntarily or involuntarily), I am having a hard time thinking of anyone who has had that number of opposes and gone on to a relatively uncontroversial adminship. Risker (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A good idea worth bringing up on the RfA talk page. From personal experience, I know it is much easier to vote support than it is to oppose. I prefer to vote neutral when I'm not comfortable (in this case it was easier to oppose because of the 'hidden' past) because, and this is my predilection, an oppose requires a lot more research and thought than a support does. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that any such approach should also have a way of discounting content-POV opposes and vote stacking. So a plain vanilla number of opposes is not going to be enough. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think any "hard" metric is helpful - what if Wikipedia grows so large that we have more than 1000 people participating at RfA? Then 40-45 opposes would still mean 95%+ support. No, I think the current system, in theory, is okay. We do not work by definite numbers but by consensus. Consensus can be reached with 60% and it may not be reached at 90%. For example 50 opposes based on "not enough edits" will still not make a reason to fail a good candidate while 10 opposes showing serious mistakes will be enough to fail another one.  So Why  14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This case isn't borderline. A bunch of the unstricken opposes were cast by sock puppets, many of whom are now on lengthy "vacations" from Wikipedia. Once the 'crats catch up with the investigations, these votes will probably be indented, and it will not be a borderline RFA at all.


 * 07:16, 15 September 2008 YellowMonkey (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Barnham (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months ‎ (tons of socks) (Unblock)
 * 07:12, 15 September 2008 YellowMonkey (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Gilbertine goldmark (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 months ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)
 * = ✅ by Sam Korn.

It is extremely depressing when malefactors to create trouble and good faith people oppose because of the drama. The drama is caused by the sockpuppets and bad faith vote stacking, not by those who try to prevent it. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the drama is initiated by the candidate himself. As I said before, his dishonesty causes the unnecessary dramas from the start. I appreciate your scrutiny as filing the sockpuppet while you falsely accuse many people as well.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to know a priori who is a sock puppet in every case. Separating the innocent from the guilty is what checkuser is for!  None of my requests have been rejected for lack of evidence. In fact, more than 50% of the accounts I reported as possible socks have been blocked based on technical evidence, and some of the others may yet be blocked based on behavioral evidence.  Jehochman Talk 13:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about different stories. I've got help from you several times on such sockpuppetry cases before, but I'm more focusing on this irregularity (the term has quite a lot of meanings) of the RfA campaign itself.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that rational people could oppose this RFA for lack of disclosure of prior accounts. My own feeling is that Cirt had reasonable concerns about real life harassment.  If it were me, I would have disclosed the prior accounts, but to each his own.  So, yes, I agree with you that a certain amount of drama was created by that situation, but it may have been unavoidable.  For my own part, I regret having made comments on the RFA page, rather than WP:RFCU, WP:SSP, or WP:BN.  My own actions have been somewhat distracting, and I apologize for that.  Going forward I will be wiser. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sincere answer. Well, as for the real life harassment, if I were him, I would not give more opportunities to such harassers as exposing myself to the boarder public spaces. He does not seem to need the tools for building up articles that he edits.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As an oppose votes, I'd like first to thank Jehochman. (This is not sacrasm here) You've done some good work here identifying blatant sock-puppet abuse - and none of us want to see that messing up a debate. Unfortunately, what happens when people abuse things is that legitimate users also begin to get caught in the net of suspicion. And here I think you have been somewhat over-zealous. (But not unforgivably so.) It is perfectly reasonable that people who don't usually participate in RfA decide to do so on this one. Indeed, it is a pity that the usual suspects are often the only ones to participate in an RfA - we really need a climate when others can to. At the heart of this is a philosophical debate as to whether Cirt's recent good work cancels out his past - and wikipedians can agree to make different judgements there in good faith. For myself, I am very respectful of people wanting to hide identity for fear of off-wiki harassment. However, I do not think that is valid here. Principally because anyone who knows how to look can quickly uncover Cirt's previous accounts - so whilst they can't be discussed and are unseen by many participants, they will easily be found by anyone with nefarious intent. The information can be found NOT because anyone leaked, but because a) Cirt's present account began by editing the same Scientology articles - so you can find the old ones in the histories. b) Durova's nomination pointed to the Scientology article and said "secret here, hush hush" - that is just sure and certain to make people look. If Cirt wants to hide his past, he's done a piss-poor job of it, and by inviting the scrutiny inherent in an RFA, his past was sure to become known by most - but by denying it to all, he has (in my opinion) pissed off some wikipedians in exchange for a zero return of identity protection.--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Whatever the result, pass or fail, it should be a clean result. None of us want to see a controversial close. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, if this many abusive socks and cultists are opposing Cirt for standing up for NPOV, Cirt has obviously been doing something right for Wikipedia all this time. Saying he caused the drama of the sockpuppets specifically is like saying someone "asked" to be mugged and/or assaulted for dressing boldly, and that's just a distasteful thing to say. Multiple sock puppets tied to cults have now been caught at Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not criticized Cirt's edits on Scientology at all, and don't know about all juicy details. However, if if he becomes an admin, he has to deal with such people more. Besides, he is not obviously trusted by many people who know his past. That is a problem.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And at the same time, far more people trust Cirt than distrust him. We're not here to be liked by everyone. Wikipedia isn't a social game. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I limit the definition of the many people clearly. Who has set up and inviteed such game? The sockpuppeters? Ney. The candidate himself.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec * lots) I agree with Jehochman that this RFA should not be borderline at all. Indeed, if we were considering a candidate whose block log actually showed his seven blocks, it would fail with under 50% support. I applaud Cirt's work defending Wikipedia from a pro-Scientology POV, but that doesn't excuse crossing our one real line in the sand, doing so seven times that he was blocked for, and another three times that he wasn't blocked for that we know about. If he has concern about real-life harassment, that's fine and completely understandable. But that doesn't mean that the past should be ignored in considering whether or not to make him an admin. An admin has to be a trusted member of the community and right now it's a Super Secret (tm) who it is that we're even supposed to trust. Of course, anyone with a passing knowledge of Wikipedia can figure out in about 5 minutes who his previous identity was but goodness knows, we can't link to his block logs or talk about his contribution history here because that would be outing him. What a farce - if you break the rules, no matter how severely, change your name, wait a year, and we aren't allowed to talk about your past any more. I have no idea why so many of my fellow admins are falling in line here in support of this candidacy, but I, strongly oppose it and fear that it will only cause problems down the line. --B (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, it is obvious that the vast majority of supporters (with the exception of a few notable exceptions) were not exposed to Cirt's past accounts and behavior, and vice-versa for those that oppose. So, it could be argued that people are commenting based on their experience in interacting with Cirt, with the caveat that those that did not know his past accounts are missing 1/2 of the picture.  Our Crats are experienced enough to look through all this and I am sure that they will make a determination that puts the project first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The opposite also holds true. If a person gets blocked (say 10 times in one year, all minor stuff aka no sockpuppet or threatening legal actions), then comes clean without any blocks/RfC/RfAr for next 5 years and runs for RfA. After 5 years, people will still claim "oppose, because he got 10 blocks before" on his RfA. Sometimes we overlook the time duration, and instead, focus on the amount of blocks. OhanaUnitedTalk page</b> 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True. But how can one decide what to overlook and what not to overlook when neither the extent of blocks nor the reasons why the editor was controversial are disclosed? Coming clean involves, um, coming clean. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If Cirt's entire edit history was on the open at the outset of this RFA, we may not be having this conversation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, OhanaUnited, actually, we already have an admin who has been blocked 7 times for various reasons (3RR, NPA, civility, arbcom ruling etc although some of them were nullified) but past the RfA. The only different thing is our current candidate did not disclose his past accounts unlike the admin.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) When to forgive is a personal decision. I think Cirt has behave well for a long enough time to be trusted, but others may disagree, and I respect their opinions. The supporters include many administrators, at least two checkusers and an arbitrator. These folks are not in the dark about who Cirt used to be; they are just quicker to forgive. Jehochman Talk 16:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a matter of "generosity and forgiveness. I don't have anything to forget or forgive him. You comment can be viewed that the arbitrators and checkuser do already know who Cirt was with their experiences with him or their ability to look into his past with the special tools. However, majority of voters do not have any chance to know his past, but have to believe what the nominators or other supports are saying or their own experiences. I just can't trust people who are not honest about himself to the community.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have known exactly who Cirt has been all along, and I didn't use any special tools or have access to privileged info to figure it out. People are free to support or oppose as they like for whatever reasons they deem important.  You are welcome to hold your opinion, and I respect it, but please recognize that others can reasonably hold different opinions. On Wikipedia it is quite usual to disagree with friends from time to time.  It is healthy, because disagreement is a sign of independent thinking. Jehochman Talk 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, I, for one, am still in the dark. If the criteria for 'forgiveness' applies only to admins, checkusers, and arbitrators, then the RfA should be decided only by them. Why bother bringing it up for the community to decide? WP:NBD, anyone? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A few observations: as I've said in a variety of other discussions, it's my abiding belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Cirt's assessment of his personal safety is unambiguously his own decision. Some of the choices he's made there are ones I don't personally agree with or recommend, but he's an adult and he lives with the consequences. I advised him to disclose his prior accounts to the community before starting this RFA. He selected the present course, which on the whole probably lost him more votes than it gained him. There's a distinction to be made (not too fine a distinction I hope) between honesty and candor: it was never Cirt's intention to deceive, or mine to abet deception. Everything that we've disclosed here has, to the best of my knowledge and ability, been accurate. To the people who e-mailed to request his prior account information: thank you for your diligence and discretion. If my posts related to this RFA occasionally appeared overly aggressive, I apologize. We anticipated canvassing and socking but it was a surprise to see so much of it. Certainly there are Wikipedians who opposed for solid reasons; most of the opposers are honest editors. I hope the actions of the minority does not taint upstanding opposers in any way. Likewise, although I am aware of virtually no questionable activity on the supporter side, any that comes to light will receive my vigilant attention. More important than the outcome of this RFA is the integrity of the RFA process. Nominating a candidate who had seven 3RR blocks in his past was not an easy decision: I waited many months to see if Cirt's turnaround would hold solid, and truly I was impressed by his improvements in every regard. It must be much harder to decide what to make of a candidate at a busy RFA in just a few days. Thank you all for coming, whatever your decision was, and I hope we can work together congenially in the future. Durova Charge! 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The !vote was 88/1/2 before anyone mentioned the number of blocks on the RFA page (diff). Prior to that, only your characterization of the blocks as "some" and your assurances that they were not a problem were available.  Since the time that more information has come to be available, the !vote has been 77/42/5 and regardless of attempts to spin opposition as resulting from sock puppets or trouble makers, this is pretty solid evidence of a change in opinion after the facts came to be available.  Your characterization is out of whack with the facts.  He was blocked seven times, and reported three more times for edit warring, but the admin opted for an alternate resolution (protecting the page).  Someone who has violated 3RR 10 times is not correctly characterized as not "any more significant concern" or "some blocks".  The "honest" way to proceed would be to contact the 88 people who !voted support before his block history was revealed, inform them that additional facts have come to light, and inform them of their opportunity to reconsider their !vote if they so choose.  That way, everything is as above board as it can be.  (There's no way to uncork the bottle on other problems, but this at least ensures that anyone expressing a !vote is doing so with all of the available information.) --B (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually your comments tie in with a potential tool I was discussing with a couple of people last night, which would track the relative voting distributions at RFAs. It's been my anecdotal observation that votes tend to frontload naturally: some Wikipedians watch RFAs and tend to vote early, so the first 1-2 days tend to be the most active.  Likewise, the percentage of supports tends to drop rather than rise from day 1 to day 7.  Your objection might have merit, although deception was never our intention and Cirt disclosed his block log as soon as the first opposer requested it.  Also noteworthy is that the first two uninvolved commenters considered that a nonissue because only two of the blocks were longer than 24 hours and the most recent occurred 15 months ago.  It's equally arguable that spurious claims against the candidate raised unwarranted clouds of doubt: assertions that some of his blocks were for incivility (none were), that he's unable to edit neutrally (11 FAs attest neutrality) or that vague and unspecified 'other concerns' rendered him unfit for the bit.  Those of us who pointed out such factual errors got taken to task for it rather badly.  Certainly there are also valid reasons for opposing Cirt.  One of my regrets is that I didn't urge him more strongly to post his own full block log when he first accepted the nomination.  A number of opposers commented that they considered the blocks themselves somewhat less objectionable than the delay in disclosing the details (and some mistakenly said he had not disclosed the blocks at all).  All in all, I'm a bit hesitant to attribute all of the difference in votes to that one element for two reasons: first, an increase in relative opposes is normal over time at RFA; second, that several spurious oppose rationales were also asserted and not withdrawn--hence gaining traction.  With respect,  Durova Charge! 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think a better solution would be to extent the RfA, say 48 or 72 hours. The people that voted before all the oppose discussion will have had plenty of chance to come round and see what happened in that case. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moot now. --B (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable votes
During the RFA I contacted Z00r, who used an alternate account to vote support. I notified the bureaucrats about that and trust their decision. Also, it's come to my attention that another supporter, Fatality, has been indeffed for socking. In the interest of integrity and reconciliation I ask other supporters to post any more questionable supports here, and opposers to post questionable opposes. Please provide a solid reason with each name proposed. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, I have seen cases of what is arguably canvasssing and outing on other editors' talk pages. I can provide the diffs to a bureaucrat, rather than leave them here, as I want to respect Cirt's desire for privacy (even though, as I say above, I don't think this was an advisable course of action for him to take).  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if disclosing a problem amounts to repeating an outing, please handle it discreetly. Thank you very much.  Durova Charge! 20:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that anything that needs to be emailed to a bureaucrat should probably go to User:WJBScribe, who has placed the RfA on hold for his analysis. Risker (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)