As expected, out come the trolls:
QUOTE
Outside view by Gamaliel
Some thoughts on the allegations above:
The promotional tone of particular articles. Is this a problem that Cirt should address? Certainly. It is a very common problem. I've seen it many, many times in student papers I've graded. People are inundated with advertising and promotional copy and their writing sometimes unconsciously reflects that, especially if the source material they are working with is promotional as well. I fail to see how this is "evidence" of "loyalty to outside causes", however. The examples of politicians cited include both Democrats and Republicans. What cause is Cirt supposed to be promoting here? Bipartisanship? Or are we alleging that he is a paid editor for hire?
Creation of non-notable articles to promote anti-Scientology. If creating an article on some obscure restaurant is a crime, we're all guilty. Even Jimbo, whose complaint in the AFD is cited above, has done it. Remember the Mzoli's Meats controversy? Plenty of people in the AFD thought that Cirt's article was sufficiently sourced and notable. Are they secretly promoting anti-Scientology too?
Editing and expansion of articles related to Dan Savage. Isn't that what we're supposed to do here? Why is this even an issue?
Too many DYK submissions on the same topic. I think this is a problem to address with the DYK rules, not a problem with anything Cirt did. People are going to produce/expand multiple articles on similar topics because that's what they're interested in and that's what they've researched. DYK recently featured multiple articles by me on female mathematicians and Yale graduates. Am I now an "activist" for those topics?
Inappropriate sources. Many sources are mentioned above as if they are so obviously inappropriate that it is mindboggling. For example, a self-published YouTube clip from Aaron Saxton is cited as inappropriate. But what's wrong with that? He's talking about himself and his views. It's long been established that self-published sources by people are acceptable in that context. If you don't like it, campaign to change the policy.
Manipulation of sources. Cirt wrote in Everything Tastes Better with Bacon "Several recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004". But his accusers counter: "The number of recipes included in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004 is two." Are you fucking kidding me? You should send me a check for the time I wasted reading that.
If you want to address whatever issues you have with Cirt's editing, I support that. But what I see here is an attempt to spin a whole bunch of non-issues and minor complaints into a pattern of nefarious behavior that is not backed by any evidence. Whatever happened to AGF? Why are we trying to turn positive things like creating and expanding articles into negatives? Every day there's some ankle biter trying to accuse me of this motive or that agenda because I made an edit he didn't like. It's frustrating to see established editors doing the same to an editor who overall does quality work. There's plenty of political ideologues who openly push a political agenda here on Wikipedia and edit nothing but political articles. I don't see evidence here that Cirt is one of them, and it seems that we're trying to punish him with nothing but a bunch of imagined connections and circumstantial evidence while leaving flagrant offenders unmolested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that the creator of this RFCU has been heavily criticised for "Wikihounding" Cirt [56] does not fill me with confidence, either. This strikes me as just more of the same. As a side note, is it appropriate to post notices about this RfC/U to numerous user talk pages? [57] Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. If this isn't pointy behavior, I don't know what is. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree per my statement above. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
And now we have an RFC, and what's more, an ArbCom case
