Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Active:

1. Casliber
2. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
3. Cool Hand Luke
4. David Fuchs
5. Jclemens
6. Kirill Lokshin
7. Mailer diablo
8. Newyorkbrad
9. PhilKnight
10. Roger Davies
11. SirFozzie

Inactive:

1. Iridescent
2. Risker
3. Xeno

Recused:

1. Coren
2. John Vandenberg
3. Elen of the Roads

Brad, I have no love for the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church, or Rick Santorum. But Cirt's promises are as good as those of a cat in a birdhouse, sitting in front of a huge heap of blue feathers, saying (as it has done every few months for the past five years), with a full mouth that still has blue feathers twitching in it, "I don't think I have eaten any blue budgies, but I accept that my actions have laid me open to the criticism that I may have done so. I have stepped back from blue budgies, I no longer pay any attention to blue budgies, and those who are saying I should be removed from the birdhouse are failing to assume good faith." You don't give a cat in a birdhouse, even a beloved cat, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth chances to not eat your budgies. You just pick it up, gently, remove it, and the drama is over. --JN466 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your view of the situation very clear, and have helpfully answered my questions in a useful and concise way. Let's wait now to hear from Cirt regarding his side of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little perplexed by your wording in your third question to me, Cbrick. You say "I like to solve things with minimal sanctions". As far as I can see, you have made 168 edits to Wikipedia to date, having joined the project three months ago (2011-04-19). Your first edits don't strike me as those of a newbie. Have you edited Wikipedia before, under a different account? --JN466 13:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember reading this post and was prepared to answer it until you changed it. I'm glad you re asked it. No, this is my first and only account. I apologize for my wording being unclear and having it confuse you. When I said that "I like to solve things with minimal sanctions" I was refering to my off-wiki relations with other people. I do a good amount of arguing and compromise off-wiki and when I come to solutions I like them to be as simple as possible. That's what I was trying to accomplish with that question (That an interaction ban would stop the tension between you and Cirt as well as still providing a way for you to edit by proxy in case Cirt reverts to old ways). I realized that it wasn't a good idea because it wouldn't solve the problem, just mask it. Hope that clears things up. Chris (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, I trust that an Arb or Clerk will correct me, but my understanding is that questions to the parties should be asked and answered here, on the talk page, and not on the workshop page itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the format of User:Newyorkbrad to ask my questions. Looking at other cases decided earlier, it seems that questions to parties are answered on the main page, not the talk page. I'm not a party to the case so the question for me shouldn't be on the main page. I looked before bothering a clerk, but you can still ask one if you wish. Chris (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct informational questions such as Cbrick77's seem to be appropriate where they are. Extended discussion of them would seem to be better on the talk pages (either here or at evidence talk page). I actually really like the direct question and short answer, rather than some of the tl,dr stuff the talk page can turn into. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrick, I am sorry but it is not credible that a new user with 168 edits finds this arbitration page and joins in the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wnt has proposed three principles that I find rather disconcerting. They seem to be devised exactly for the purpose of defending the actions of one editor at Wikipedia, User:Cirt. It makes it seem like Wnt is Cirt's lawyer, making an opening argument in a trial, as opposed to an editor who wants to establish fundamental principles upon which the smooth functioning of this project are based. Clearly people will make proposals here based on their POV of this matter, but still, in doing so, let's try to keep the broader project in mind here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree, but would add that since Cirt is seemingly taking a break from wikipedia during this case, someone does need to evaluate things from his POV. I'm not going to, as I see far to much problematic to treat it all in nieve good faith. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has advised the committee that he is travelling and will be offline for another few days. I anticipate that when he is back, he will present his position and evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like there were enough prosecutors on the job already. Griswaldo's position here reminds me of his notion of NPOV - he's suggesting it's illegitimate for me to support Cirt consistently, even though he has no qualms about opposing Cirt consistently. I believe for this process to be fair an editor should be free to make a determined defense of Cirt if he chooses - but I haven't even come close doing that. I've opposed some of the evidence and some of the principles that struck me as clearly unfair, but not specifically for Cirt's sake. I opposed the Noleander principles when they were first proposed because I foresaw that something like this was next - and if we don't stop this here, next may be political purges by activist administrators based on their goals for the 2012 election. Inclusionism, the freedom to build Wikipedia, is a stable peace - but once you start deleting information and people to "balance" articles your way, there can be no peace, only a competition to destroy Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms about you supporting Cirt, and I never suggested it was "illegitimate" for you to support him either. Can you please argue with things I've actually said. My point is not that you are defending Cirt, but that you are suggesting general "principles" which seem to fly in the face of the ability for this community to function, in order to defend one specific editor's actions. I think suggesting general principles out of the desire to either prosecute or defend one individual is wrong. This is something attorneys in a trial might do, because their objective is rather narrow. I have done no such thing, so your "prosecutors" comment seems pretty empty to me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have proposed those principles if I didn't think they were the right solution, and not just in this case. We can't have a situation where long-term editors collect demerits until they're thrown out; nor where a pile of good edits adds up to sanctionable behavior; nor should we accept "voluntarily withdrawals" after the way that they snowballed leading up to this case. (That last one to me hardly seems in Cirt's favor, BTW. I know you interpreted that way but that was the exact opposite of my intent - I'm saying either topic ban or else just warn, but don't pretend the voluntary withdrawal is a workable intermediate) Wnt (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per

I agree. It's obvious this IP is an experienced editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has said that he is the user formerly know as RickK (talk · contribs). I've asked him why he returned to get involved in this case, and what interactions he's had with Cirt.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk · contribs) is quite famous. One of the anti-vandalism barnstars is named after him. Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just received an email from someone calling himself RickK who says the new account is an impostor.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward the email to ArbCom.

a/c) 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sent.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first account was compromised, it is not much of a stretch to imagine that the hacker might create a second account and claim to be the real RickK. What an impossible situation to sort out. It would not exactly be surprising if some of the Scientology sock puppeteers or Landmark Education sock puppeteers came back to seek revenge on Cirt. Jehochman ^Talk 00:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might it not be more likely that someone from that external site where people comment on Wikipedia is behind this? I get the impression that many of the people there are banned, run socks and have taken quite an interest in this case.Griswaldo (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I suspected (and still suspect) John254. The similarities to ARBSCI are suggestive, as is the recent involvement of another such sock in the MickMacNee case. [1] --JN466 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The account has now been blocked by User:Philippe (WMF), on the basis of his analysis of the available information. So that brings us back to the original question: how to deal with socks and IP editors in ArbCom cases.

While evidence can be evaluated without regard to the person who posted it, workshop proposals and discussions are influenced by the number of people who support or oppose. Significant activity by a sock account, or someone hiding their identity by logging out, could seriously harm whatever value workshops have.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Jayen you think this John guy is behind both Cbrick and RickK?Griswaldo (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever it is clearly has a very deep knowledge of Wikipedia, a desire to play games similar to those John254 played in ARBSCI, and an intent to derail arbitration. It would have been evident to the sockmaster that their impersonation of a Wikipedia legend like RickK could not remain undiscovered for long. The real question, I guess, is whether the display had a purpose, or whether it was someone just doing it for the lulz. If we assume purpose, then we have to ask,

cui bono? The main effect I can see is to discredit the views the RickK2 sockpuppet voiced. If there isn't a purpose, then I guess it's just one of those things. --JN466 05:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hersfold has collapsed the workshop proposals. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of RickK2 but not of Cbrick. Was RickK2 confirmed by a check user or just

WP:DUCK, or is there no socking discovered only impersonation?Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The real RickK sent an email to several places stating that the RickK2 was not him. As for Cbrick, I don't see that he's blocked unless I missed something.

a/c) 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, right, Cbrick is a new user who after 168 edits found this page and wants to help out. Right. Much, much, much more likely they are somebody with an axe to grind. Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I did some poking around to find all that, I'd forgotten. Chris has been asked to step away from the case by another clerk; aside from the low edit count, there is nothing to indicate that he is a sockpuppet. And trust me, when it comes to suspicion of socking on case pages, ArbCom and the clerks both check thoroughly.

a/c) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm. You mean there is no indication that he's operating two accounts at once. As Jehochmann's reply should make clear, I think most of us would readily take the wager that this isn't his first account and this invovmenet in the case is just as suspicious as RickK's. If he's been asked to step back, I guess I wonder why his proposals still stand. There is, by the way, also a very suspicious editor at the BLP case, User:Waalkes whose continued presence on those pages likewise confuses me. I guess you're not the clerk on that one, but all the same.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Cirt seems to attract sock puppets. Perhaps there are a few long term abusers who have fun baiting him. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a useful discussion on Jehochman's talk page. --JN466 21:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested policy changes certainly would not be a step in the right direction. We should include all kinds of sources - scholarly reviews, primary data, and the popular press. Imposing a "scholarly" point of view is still imposing a POV. I saw such a situation mentioned just recently in reference to arbitration at Talk:Incite - there, some "unscientific" PDFA type ideas nonetheless had great impact on politics and deserved a full presentation (and rebuttal). What we need is not more acrimonious excuses for editors to take out each others' sourced information, but a less discriminating willingness to accept every source, making it clear to the readers what kind of source it is. Wnt (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship is already considered higher quality than news media when it comes to reliability so I don't really know what you're talking about here. Can you please spare us your crusade? I've been seeing your comments over the last few weeks in various venues (like Jimbo's talk-page), and it is pretty clear that you have a one track mind. Can you please discuss the issues at hand and not make everything into a dispute between inclusionism and deletionism? It isn't helping anyone here or elsewhere.Griswaldo (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom doesn't set policy. Anyone is free to suggest that

WP:V be altered. Having a special rule for one small area of the encyclopedia would be unusual.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Who suggested anything different Will? Jayen is just linking to a related discussion. He said nothing about Arbcom settling it. In fact, if you read the discussion it is quite clear that that is not Jehochman's intention.Griswaldo (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made isn't policy, is it? More likely just a guideline. Mainstream media isn't particularly good as a source on contentious topics. Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We use them for articles on politics, also a contentious topic. I disagree that

WP:NRMMOS, a manual of style, should be used as a back door way of setting special verifiability rules for one particular topic. If we want to deprecate the use of mainstream media sources, then let's do it project-wide.   Will Beback  talk  05:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The place to discuss this is

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Manual of Style#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Manual of Style.   Will Beback  talk  05:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Will, I find it odd that you object to simple text stating that scholarly works are preferred as sources. This is a really good way to help resolve these disputes: agree on general principles that should be non-controversial, and then apply them to the relevant disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to John Carter's proposal about "high quality articles" Jayen mentioned' Cirt's Werner Erhard (book) as an example that GAs are by no means issue free. Just now I had a good look at it myself and quite frankly I'm speechless that this is what we consider a "good article." I was going to respond on the workshop page itself but in order to do this justice I have to post a much longer point by point regarding this supposed good article. Here are but a few glaring problems with the entry.

Coatrack for criticism of Erhard

While the critical reception section has almost exclusively negative reviews of the book, almost all of which say that the book amounts to Erhard worship, the actual content section of the article does not bare this out at all. Instead the content section appears to contain only negative facts about Erhard that were contained in the book - like ditching his family, being a slick salesman, guilt by association via Scientology, having affairs, etc. It is extremely difficult to reconcile these things. How could a neutral summary of a book that is supposedly a "hagiography" of Erhard mostly contain information that makes him look bad? That fact makes little to no sense, unless it is not a neutral and accurate summary of the book at all.

The critical reception section is UNDUE

Looking at the length of the critical reception section one would think this book was reviewed by every living soul in the country. Here is a point by point on all the sources used in the second paragraph only, with the quoted text from the entry in italics (also note that I have no online access to Kirkus Review and Booklist so they are not evaluated).

• In his book Six Silent Killers: Management's Greatest Challenge, James R. Fisher characterizes Bartley's book as a "hagiography of Erhard"

• That comment was made in a footnote and there is no indication that Fisher evaluates the book in his actual prose at all.

• … and in an article for The Believer magazine Suzanne Snider lists the book in a section on "hagiographies" of Erhard.

• There is no “section” on hagiographies in the prose, as this implies, but a simple book list at the very end of the essay and a subheading called "hagiographies," with two books listed under it, but certainly no "section on hagiographies."

• Kenneth Wayne Thomas describes the book in Intrinsic Motivation at Work as "a somewhat sympathetic biography and statement of the est philosophy".

• This is also from a footnote and again there is no sign he actually discusses the book in the main text.

• Florence Whiteman Kaslow and Marvin B. Sussman write in Cults and the Family that it is "highly evident" that Bartley was "in love with ... [his] research topic".

• This is a volume edited by the cited authors, and it is unlikely that both editors happened to coauthor the essay quoted (can someone verify this?) The quoted text is also rather dubious. See [2]. It is only a snippet preview but notice the "highly evident" in reference to three authors, and then notice the "[his]" inserted into the quoted text, and that there are ellipses in between. A lot of work was done to craft that quote.

• Writing in Noseweek, Rachel Jones describes Bartley as "an est adherent who wrote a sycophantic biography of Werner Erhard".

• Bartley’s only mention in the essay is in this one sentence: "Citing Caravaggio, Rossetti, Rilke, William James and Nietzche—and the ‘mainstream American philosopher William W. Bartley III’ (an est adherent who wrote a sycophantic biography of Werner Erhard)—Monk riffs for two pages on Mark Waller's paintings." This is an entirely off handed remark offered without any analysis whatsoever. This time its not a footnote but it is within parens.

• Writing in Westword, Steve Jackson places Werner Erhard among "books sympathetic to Erhard, est and Landmark", written by an author "already in the fold". He notes: "In it, Erhard is portrayed not as a hypocrite, but as a troubled man who was able to transform himself and then set out to teach others how to do the same."

• Here’s every single word Jackson writes about the book. “There are also books sympathetic to Erhard, est and Landmark--some of them by writers already in the fold. One such tome, Werner Erhard, was written by W.W. Bartley, III, a professor of philosophy at California State University and an old friend of Erhard's. In it, Erhard is portrayed not as a hypocrite, but as a troubled man who was able to transform himself and then set out to teach others how to do the same.” Every bit of these two sentences made it into the entry.

Now that's just the second paragraph, but it's a rather shameful display of cramming in off handed one liners that are negative about the book. It is notable that almost every single one of these opinions are identical -- that the book was written by an associate of Erhard and that it is biased towards him because of that. While I do not doubt the veracity of that critique I question why it has to be repeated by quoting every single one liner anyone who has made this critique has put in print in direct quotes. To drive the point home Cirt inserted a quote box in the section, with yet another negative comment of exactly this type. There are clearly longer book reviews in the mix here, why were they not used to add other statements than this one? Why isn't the same critique being condensed into a much shorter summary like, "several critics of the book have mentioned that ..."?

Now that's just for starters. I don't have the time to keep digging into this entry, but is this what passes for a "good article" and is this the type of article that John Carter thinks needs less work? It looks to me like it needs much more work, and really careful work at that. It also looks to me like the Good Article process is completely broken if this kind of writing passes muster. Does anyone every verify sources for accuracy or relevance? Or does tight prose and good formatting do the trick every time? I'm reminded here of the Daryl Winebar entry (now deleted) which also looked pretty on its face, but was just as hollow when you had a look under the hood. How many of Cirt's other GA and FA articles are like this? This is pretty unbelievable if you ask me.Griswaldo (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cults and the family has a full preview of page 192 enabled in amazon.co.uk. The actual passage reads,

"Wise researchers know and teach that one should be in love with their research topic. This love was highly evident in the works of Pagels, Bainbridge and Bartley."

The preceding pages 190 and 191, also visible in amazon, contain what can only be described as a positive write-up of Erhard and his transformation, commending him for his honesty and for "practising what he preaches". I agree with Griswaldo, and am slightly lost for words to describe the way in which this source has been used.

I am happy to mail screenshots of the amazon previews to anyone who is interested and unable to access them for themselves. (The section in question was not written by Kaslow and Sussman, but by Kris Jeter. --JN466 03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example: Cirt's synopsis of Bartley's book states,

"Erhard reconnected with his family after an absence of 12 years.[22] According to the book, his long absence from his family caused them feelings of confusion and pain.[22]"

Jeter, in her 3-page synopsis of the same book—very little of which Cirt used—states about the same events:

The fourth book concerns a modern worldwide movement, est. Like Edward of the Power [discussed in the previous section], its founder deserted his wife. Unlike the Power, he returned twelve years later to his parents and first wife and succeeded at reinstating a positive feeling among all of the people he deserted—an enviable feat. [...] In 1972, Werner went back to Philadelphia and reopened the relationship with his family. He was honest and "let them discharge all the things that hadn't been said over the past thirteen years." His family was pleased. Every family member took the est training between 1973 and 1975 and many now work with est. Thanksgiving day, 1974, the entire family—parents, wives, children and in-laws—celebrated. "Problems occur in families because the people in them are in mystery about one another. When you are really clear about me, you don't have a problem—whatever way it is." The reunited family is a testimony that Werner "practices what he preaches".

Cirt cites a Washington Post article for his passage. Even that article states something Cirt doesn't:

"In 1960, Erhard, who was then named Jack Rosenberg, left his wife and four children in Philadelphia and disappeared for 12 years, getting back into contact with his family only after he had started est in 1971. According to the biography, his abrupt departure caused his family great pain and confusion. Now everyone in his immediate family has taken the "training" and some of them work for him."

The selections and omissions, once again, have the effect of painting Erhard in a far more negative light than the cited sources. --JN466 06:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• SYNTH and NPOV - Here's another example of rather overtly biased editing. In the lead we read, that [t]he book was well-received by graduates of the est training and became a bestseller, and in the main entry that [t]he book was well-received by graduates of the est training, who "snatched up copies of the book".[7] It became a bestseller in 1978.[33] By placing the fact that this was a best seller immediately after the fact that it was well received by graduates Cirt suggests that this is the only reason it was a best seller. Adding "who snatched up copies of the book" in the main text drives this home. That violates the spirit of SYNTH even if it arguably abides by the letter of the law. It also does so to the effect of pushing a negative POV of the book's popular reception.Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Poorly sources exceptional claims - In the section about Bartley's connection to est, we read that he was an "est devotee," and the claim is sourced to this article in People magazine. Calling a person a "devotee" of anything is an exceptional claim, because a devotee is not just a follower but an ardent, devoted follower. He may well have been such a devoted follower of est, but more is needed than what is found in People magazine to be able to state so in Wikipedia's voice. This is what we have from People magazine: "'When he started to have affairs, I saw that as a token of my utter inadequacy,' she told Erhard biographer and est devotee W.W. Bartley III." People isn't writing about Bartley or his devotion, but is barely mentioning him and choosing this as a descriptor. Hardly the type of source that should be used for this claim, in fact hardly the type of source that should be used in the article at all, but we see that many of the numerous sources here barely contain any information about Bartley or his book, except short one liners and off handed remarks. I guess this is par for the course.Griswaldo (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This SYN thing Griswaldo mentions is something I have noticed before in Erhard articles. Here is an example, from The Book of est:

In Rhinehart's fictional account of the training, the est course leader begins with the instruction: "Let me make one thing clear. I don't want any of you to believe a thing I'm saying. Get that. Don't believe me. Just listen."[1] The est trainer explains that the course techniques are used because "Werner has found that they work."[1] When one of the est participants asks why the instructor says certain statements during the course, the instructor responds: "I'm saying them because Werner has found that the trainer's saying them works."[1]

This struck me as a very compelling piece of writing. As a reader, I went, "Hey, that's absurd! First he says people shouldn't believe anything he says, and then he asks them to accept what Erhard says on blind faith!" However, when I read the source (pp. 83–87), I found that the two passages combined here are separated from each other by four pages in the source, with multiple intervening quotes from Rhinehart's book, a completely different logical progression, and much additional context that made the presence of these two statements on two separate pages of the source entirely unremarkable. When I read the source, the effect on me, as a reader, was very different from the one produced by the above paragraph. --JN466 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this source, but I don't see anything wrong with including two quotes from four pages apart. After all, the sentence in the article condenses the source cited. It matches the gist of what the source is saying - est wasn't trying to get people to believe ("ultimate meaning") but rather to use words as "participatory theater" to bring about an effect. A longer description would be better, but there's just nothing wrong with this. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related issues

This isn't related to the problems with the entry, but to Cirt's editing of the subject matter more generally. Cirt started his rewrite of the book entry at 03:09, 15 September 2009. After making a mere three edits to the entry he went over to the author,

The problem with this sort of Cirt-hunting is that nothing you say here really seems to amount to much. There's no policy or guideline against citing footnotes - authors put information there when it seems of limited relevance, but it doesn't mean it's unreliable. Saying that a hagiography couldn't give information that sounds bad for Erhard is a very simplistic logic (cf. hadith), and OR - if the sources say it's a hagiography, that's what matters. Cirt breaking up a two-line quote to remove the boring-sounding bits doesn't sound like a crime. And the "hagiography section" and "devotee" are both plain descriptions of the source. Cirt had no duty to twist the sources and make them sound more mild than what they say, nor should he have.

Now looking at this article, it does sound as if pro-est content is rather lacking; I don't hear the voices of people in the group itself commenting. For that reason, perhaps it was an iffy GA - but GA is only as good as it is. You can't get away with saying "GA should be harder" and then turn around and say "so Cirt's GA doesn't count". He produced a GA such as it is, and deserves credit for that such as it is. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt had no duty to twist the sources and make them sound more mild than what they say, nor should he have. Are you serious? The point is that he has twisted them, to make them seem less mild. The problem with presenting off handed one liners about a book in a "critical reception" section is that it creates a false impression that people who have seriously reviewed the book evaluated it in that fashion. From the longer reviews he clearly cherry picked only the quotes that support the hagiography type comments, and put in no other information. Do you really think that a three paragraph section on the reception of a work ought to list the same comment, over and over and over again in this manner? Why was the hagiography criticism not condensed into a summary? Why use footnotes when other, longer sources have made the same comments if you're not simply trying to pile on? Is piling pn a certain POV really how you write GAs? I never said Cirt's GA doesn't count, I said that it speaks volumes to the process being down right broken. Also, nuetrality is not achieve by having warring factions duke it out over an entry. You insinuate that the problem is that pro-est editors have not edited the page. Really? That is a good thing. The problem is that an anti-est editor has completely warped the page. We should want neutral editors to review and fix pages like this, not POV pushers to duke it out.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to hear your response about the summary of the book. Reviewers all seem to point out that the book is a glowing endorsement of Erhard, by a devoted follower and friend. OK, I can buy that no problem, but then why does the summary of its contents not reflect that in the least? My view is that you're witnessing someone wanting to have their cake and to eat it to. What is your opinion of this Wnt?Griswaldo (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Jeter states at the beginning of her synopsis on page 189, "The book has been well received by Werner, est graduates and critics." It's a quote that didn't make it into the article. --JN466 14:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, when I said "pro-est voices were lacking" I meant in terms of citations and quotations - I'd like to hear, from the pro-est point of view, what makes this book worth going out and buying, as the article says they did; the information wouldn't necessarily need to be added by a pro-est editor.

As I said above, there's no logical conflict between the novel having a pro-est or even hagiographic perspective, and its coverage of negative material. I suppose neither of us are enthusiastic enough to go out and run down the offline sources cited, and I know next to nothing on this topic, but to mention some not-good sources just to get the idea, consider [3] where the reader says that it shows his flaws, but then in 1970 he has a "peak experience", and then he "cleans up his mistakes" in life, and gives great philosophical insights. An apparent supporter's page sounds very positive about the book, [4] and also notes that it ends with the development of the est training. Slight evidence, but enough to encourage my impression that new religious movements are immune to your deductive powers. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...there's no logical conflict between the novel having a pro-est or even hagiographic perspective, and its coverage of negative material. Are you sure this is what you meant to write because as written it makes no sense, and notably this isn't a "novel" but a biography. Have you actually read the entry? The problem is that secondary sources describe the book as X, but the summary of the book written by the same person who added all the critical views of it presents the book as Y and you don't see a problem with that? It just so happens that describing the book as X is unflattering tot he book, and presenting its contents as Y is unflattering to the book's subjects and still you find no problem with that? Nothing makes you wonder if this isn't a violation of

WP:NPOV? The book cannot be both X and Y, it can only be one of them. You can't pick and chose based on the context and to your liking. That is rather clearly what Cirt has done here. I'd like a real answer that makes sense please, and one that addresses this biography and not some novel.Griswaldo (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a general problem I've been seeing from the deletionist side of the aisle, where people think that to revert things all they have to do is have some personal opinion that they don't make sense. That's "original research" same as any other. Whether it seems logical to you or not, from what little I've read (and I haven't read the book itself at all), the book seems to be saying that Erhard made some bad decisions and did some bad things in his life, all of which were leading inexorably to this moment of enlightenment, which allowed him to come back and set it all straight and do the same for you. That's not a logical contradiction. There are stories of reprobates and "loose women" and persecutors who turned into saints in Christianity also, which emphasize their past offenses at least as much as their later reformation, which are nonetheless hagiographic. Cirt stuck with the sources - perhaps neglecting to explain some of the core ideology, which I see more as a matter of it being difficult to understand and get at than anything else, especially as the adherents all say you have to go to the seminar to get the benefit. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, everything is about "deletionists" for you. You're arguing an ideological position without even taking the time to research the material you're talking about. First you called it a "novel" and now you say that you've not read the sources, but that somehow Cirt is representing them adequately. Do you plan to discuss the materials that others have taken the time to actually look over before commenting, or are you planning to continue to wage your own ideological battle against deletionism? I'm personally not interested in the latter.Griswaldo (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionist-deletionist debates are really tiresome. I suggest avoiding them at all costs. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "novel" was a bit of a Freudian slip; I might indeed harbor a bit of personal skepticism about est and an authorized biography thereof. I never claimed to be an expert on the topic, nor have I been seeking to become one. But you're the one making a charge against Cirt, like so many accusations from him before this from so many people, that just rots apart in my hands when I hold it up to even a cursory examination. I just hope ArbCom examines the charges carefully before they make any decision based on them. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RickK2 was impersonating former user 'RickK' and has been indefinitely blocked; the proposals below were moved from the project page.

Users eligible to participate in arbitration proceedings may submit proposals on the project page as they see fit. –xeno^talk 01:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to indicate the sock master if you have identified one or some other indication of Rickk2 being an imposter? I thought the whole thing sounded fishy and would like to know why the decision was made to remove him now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it was the email from RickK's old email address to the wikien public mailing list that clinched it: [5] –xeno^talk 02:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of pointing out the very obvious, the user also made various comments throughout the page, which would be impractical to move, but I trust the Committee will appropriately disregard or discount them where they occur. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I've stricken and annotated the comments [6]. –xeno^talk 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, well done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by RickK2

...should directly pertain to the proposals on the page. Discussion about other cases, allegations of misconduct by editors that are not parties to this case, and other general mud-slinging does not belong here. I've collapsed the discussion under the "Failed RFC/U" section as it was quickly getting out of hand and had been off-topic nearly from the start. I don't particularly like taking this sort of action - mainly because I'm pretty darn sure you all really don't like me taking this sort of action - so let's try to keep things more on topic from here out, please. If there are issues that need to be presented at the BLP case, please present them there and keep them away from here.

Some of what you hatted directly disputed Wnt's "statement of fact" regarding the failed RfC/U. Can you please unhat those discussions? If you need help sorting it out I'm all yours. Just ask.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact very little of what you collapsed was off topic. In relation to what I contributed, Prioryman's sabotage of the RfC/U is direclty relevant to it's supposed "failure." Are you saying that such a discussion should be considered merely "allegations of misconduct by editors that are not parties to this case, and other general mud-slinging?" You cannot allow someone to present a "statement of fact" and not allow others to present the necessary points to refute it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed all of this again, and while a good part of what you're considering relevant seems to be people sniping at each other, I've restored most of it. The Prioryman discussion does seem to provide some relevant context. However, I've kept Cla's comment and responses to it collapsed as it was primarily allegations of misconduct by other editors, and belonged in the BLP case more than here. He's welcome to rephrase his comments to avoid attacking other editors.

If in the future you have a problem with an action I've taken, this is the proper means of addressing that; alternatively, post on my talk page. Sarcastic comments directly on the workshop page are inappropriate.

a/c) 15:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This case is closely connected to the "Manipulation of BLPs" (MBLP) case. Significant evidence in that case has yet to be added, leaving its scope unclear. Depending on where that case goes, there may be issues concerning Cirt or Jayen466 which would be more appropriate to address here. Therefore, this case should be kept open until both cases can be closed.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This case should be wrapped up as expediently as possible. It is not fair to Cirt or Jayen466 to keep this hanging over them. If something changes as a result of the other case, a clarification can be issued. Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note - discussion moved here, as only parties may make motions.

a/c) 00:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If significant evidence is added about my editing to topics where Jayen466 has also been active, I would probably have evidence which would concern him. Where would that evidence go if this case is closed first?   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about Jayen's editing you need to post them in this case. Why aren't you doing so? The idea that you are waiting to see if someone posts evidence against you first seems rather odd, in fact it makes your motives come off as rather questionable. So if you want to post evidence about Jayen's behavior then do so now. There is nothing stopping you. Also, if you need to mention Jayen in exculpatory evidence you present in the other case I'm pretty sure we've already been told that it is fine to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo is correct. If you have Jayen-related evidence, it should have been posted by now - do so as soon as possible. If some of this needs to be provided as necessary background (as Prioryman has done here with Delicious Carbuncle) then you may do so in the BLP case.

a/c) 01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

We're here to solve disputes. If the other case becomes about disputes in which I'm said to be a party, then I would like to add evidence about other members of those purported disputes. Cla68, who has been a close associate of Jayen466, seems to be waiting to add his evidence to the MBLP case until this case has closed. If that evidence covers disputes that involved Jayen466 then I will naturally have to reply.

An alternative would be to close the MBLP evidence phase when this is closed. Since there has been so little activity at that page, that would not seem to be prematurely limiting the case.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody introduces new evidence, you and anybody else are free to respond with whatever evidence is needed to explain your own actions. Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an ArbCom member or clerk say so.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yes. If the evidence is determined to be out of scope, then you can file a request for amendment for this case.

a/c) 04:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. If the evidence phase of the MBLP case is closed per its deadline, three days ago, then this won't be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point of this case is to wrap it up expeditiously, which might moot some of the issues of that case. That's why we launched it first. Cool Hand Luke 16:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop#User:Cirt.27s OTRS access

I have replaced some of this and taken it on board as mine. I supported it in the original thread that was removed. I have replaced a couple of comments as well from the thread that seem to not be now out of place considering the changes - one from an arb which seems to be still relevant and removed one from Brad as it is now dated as Cirt is commenting and I added a post from someone I emailed and asked to comment because he was closely involved at Commons. I left the other comments out as users may want to re visit their comments prior to re commenting. The original additions are above on this page - Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop#Proposals by RickK2 -

I have removed this proposal in my capacity as case clerk. Reposting a proposal as your own, and most especially comments from a previous proposal, is inappropriate. Any proposals you post should be of your own work; furthermore, you may not cherry-pick comments from other proposals and/or apply them to yours as though they were left by those users. If editors wish to review comments from the previous proposal on which your original proposal is based, you may link to the copy available on this page, or to the original as it exists in page history. However, all editors must be allowed to make comments of their own accord - you may not speak for them.

a/c) 15:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

On a somewhat related note, I would point out that OTRS is beyond the remit of the Arbitration Committee, as has been noted by at least two arbitrators so far.

a/c) 15:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It is clearly relevant to this case - Do you object if I replace the proposal with only my own comments? I have replaced it - Its important and I do not care if its not supported - I think it should be and thats all that matters.

Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Its been removed again. I fail to see any reason at all why I can't add this proposal.

Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I misread the history (thought you were directly reverting) and self-reverted. My self-reversion should not be taken as an endorsement of the proposal nor does it constrain further clerk actions on the 'replaced' proposal. –xeno^talk 15:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's imo really important this proposal is presented whether or not its supported - there are many users that support such a removal, and it's important that

Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

While I remain inactive on this case, I would point out that a) the Arbitration Committee cannot control who has OTRS access and b) all the provided diffs are from the Wikimedia Commons. In theory, the committee could restrain a user from acting in their capacity as an OTRS agent on this project, but for this remedy to be considered there would likely need to be evidence presented of problematic OTRS-related activity on this project. –xeno^talk 15:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob: This just isn't going to happen. OTRS doesn't seems to care what ArbCom thinks anyway, and I don't think it's worthwhile to spend what little political capital we have with them on second-guessing actions on another project, especially given that we don't even have access to all the facts. That's futile and far from our mandate besides. If you think there's a problem with his use of OTRS, go to OTRS. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the proposal again, as the supporting comments are out of scope and beyond ArbCom's remit. If you are able to demonstrate misuse of OTRS authority on this wiki, the issue can be revisited. Otherwise, you should seek redress of these concerns on Commons or OTRS.

a/c) 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you all saying that these OTRS activities don't have direct consequences on this project? I can appreciate the fact that Arbcom might not be able to do anything about his OTRS access on Commons directly, but surely we are not meant to believe that these activities are without consequence here, that the two projects aren't intricately linked in this aspect. Why were copyrights of Cirt's uploads challenged in the first place? Because he uploaded copyrighted material or because he was using it on Wikipedia? Indeed why would anyone care that he is uploading anything, or granting permissions for his own uploads if the fear isn't that he'll then actually use the uploaded material here, on Wikipedia? And by the way, given the reasoning given here you should remove all evidence presented by Prioryman concerning Jayen's activities on Wikipedia Review. Think about it, carefully please. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's becoming a moot point, and I would suggest that it will be unproductive to complain that the arbs should change their position and examine the OTRS material. However, during the brief time that it was on the page, I made a comment, which I think remains valid in response to the evidence, and I reproduce my comment here:

Please bear with me, because I'm far from an expert on how OTRS works, but I have some questions about the evidence presented (even though it may be moot in any case). (And I'm also not clear about presenting evidence on the Workshop page instead of on the Evidence page.) Anyway, when I look at the diffs provided, all I see is Cirt providing information about the ticket number, which Cirt obtained via the OTRS process. I'm guessing that when one makes a communication to OTRS, one is given this number automatically, whether or not one has OTRS privileges. Cirt knows the content of the OTRS materials, because Cirt is the one who submitted them. I realize that we do see Cirt entering this information onto Commons file pages, and perhaps there's a COI, but I would have thought that users who upload files to Commons are actually expected to provide links to OTRS where they exist. Are we actually seeing anything against policy (even Commons policy) here? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, at least several of the links were submitted by Cirt and then appended to the pages by Cirt, but were handled by a third party on OTRS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• - Fair enough, seems reasonable. If as a resolution to this arbitration the
  Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]