Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:21, 24 August 2011

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion: scope of case

1) Hold the case as a general fact-finding case, in which no sanctions will be handed down. Ask participants to post a maximum of 5 articles to the evidence page, with analysis showing how and why the article is coatracked. You'll get a sampling of the most contentious cases, at least a couple dozen if not more, depending on how many editors post evidence. You'll get a good overview of the scope of the problem, but probably not in depth enough to levy sanctions. However, this would give you a platform to restate the obvious principles of editing BLPs, and give you the chance to draw some lines (this is acceptable but that is not). You could also then, if you choose, open individual cases that will examine certain editors in depth.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand the frustration of parties who aren't exactly sure how this is being cleaved or what's being dealt with; this case has suffered from coming in the smack of everyone yelling about everything else and being a badly-framed request with lots of people wanting lots of things. I don't think it's pointless to develop a sort of "best principles" result without sanctions—given that this is a novel approach anyhow, I would not think it kind to participants by essentially threatening sanctions for a lack of participation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Griswaldo: I have never said ArbCom is blameless. I'm more interested in proceeding with something useful and clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I understand how it might have seemed unclear, but by everyone I mean us too. I think that unfortunately this case landed in the middle of a bunch of other tasks and I don't think we did our due diligence in breaking them out at the time. Hopefully other arbs will chime in soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Originally ~~proposed~~ suggested by User:Thatcher at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Scope...really?. This addresses concerns about the lack of a clear scope for this case. Will Beback talk 02:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this count as prior dispute resolution then? If we put up evidence from an entry that was not discussed in the Cirt RfC, for instance.Griswaldo (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Griswaldo: How would this be a form of dispute resolution? Rather, it seems like dispute identification. Will Beback talk 02:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I oppose the motion because it is pointless. Why should we all be wasting our time identifying problems that cannot then be taken to Arbitration after being identified? Completely pointless, and not in line with what I was taking Thatcher to mean btw. I was taking Thatcher to mean that it would be enough to go from this to another case.Griswaldo (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only votes which matter here are those of the ArbCom. Arbitrators might have a different view of whether this proposal would count as dispute resolution. Will Beback talk 02:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only votes which matter here are those of the ArbCom. And you're stating this because you thought they might forget that and might count my opposition along with their opinions? I'm stating my opinion Will, I think that's allowed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the utter lack of evidence posted so far tends to show what a boondoggle this case is as currently framed. I'm named as a party, for no reason I can clearly identify, and I have no idea what sort of thing I should be even thinking about looking at as "evidence". I... I'm just speechless at where this thing is going. Thatcher's suggestion as moved by Will is at least a less onanistic way to proceed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understand as it was proposed was to look at 1) the longstanding feuds between several editors. 2) the hostile and absurd behavior from several editors in the RFC/U.

RFC/U, 3) the accusations of BLP violations involving those editors in the cult topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs. Of course, you arbitrators are blameless regarding the whole situation of how this has been handled ... by you. First you took your sweet time. Then when you proposed a way to divide this up a great many of us, from every side of this dispute, asked questions and gave our concerns about what you had decided (in fact that's been one of the few things most of us have agreed upon). The questions went unanswered, and the concerns were not taken into account. Then you dragged your feet some more and now here we are, the culpable masses who have brought this all onto ourselves somehow. This is getting to be too absurd for me. Should we just close the case now and get it over with? Clearly nothing of value is coming of any of this.Griswaldo (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs. You went out of your way to say this - this case has suffered from coming in the smack of everyone yelling about everything else and being a badly-framed request with lots of people wanting lots of things. And that is all you had to say on the matter. So please understand that this comes of as an explanation for the confusion based on "everyone's yelling" etc. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Clarification: ~~proposed~~ suggested as one of several options, because the committee apparently does not have a meeting of the minds regarding scope (e.g. Kiril and John's comments). I still think, per my first comment, that this would be a waste of time. Policies already exist regarding BLPs, SEO is irrelevant (is BLP mischief less serious if google doesn't notice?), and the committee can draw lines by tossing out a few topic bans and probations (or more). But having one clear purpose is probably better than no clear purpose, even if the purpose is an exercise in restating the obvious. Thatcher 02:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Close

2) This case has reached its natural conclusion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not just yet. A drafting arbitrator has now been assigned to the case (Newyorkbrad), and I believe they will be presenting some ideas on how to move this forward. –xeno^talk 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. While there may be a significant divergence between this case and traditional cases, I think it appropriate for us to weigh in on how we, as a committee, would interpret the community's input in the RFC into principles which will be applied should similar issues arise in the future, as I opined on the Workshop talk page. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that this case winds up with a reaffirmation of general principles, and guidelines for dispute resolution when there are allegations those principles have been violated, rather than with findings and sanctions against particular editors. That is in large function a measure of the unclarity when the case was opened coupled with the current state (or non-state) of the evidence page. But we will see what other evidence comes in, and then as drafter I anticipate being able to do something useful with the case, even though I was not the biggest proponent of splitting the request into two cases precisely as was done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It looks like nothing further productive can be done. Let's close this case, and bring any lingering concerns about policy to WT:BLP, or about specific incidents to WP:BLPN. Thank you for your efforts. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something useful would be nice. Although I can't see what that would be, I am willing to keep an open mind. How about paring down the list of names to only include those editors against whom evidence has been posted? If somebody comes forward with evidence, notify the editor and add them, not the other way around. It is unfair to grab an arbitrary group of editors and invite the community to submit evidence against them. Arbitrators volunteered for this job -- the rest of us didn't. Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and no on can agree on what its scope is or should be. If there are genuine disputes that require the committee's attention it'd be best to start over with a fresh request. Will Beback talk 06:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: What is the scope of the case? Why are these people parties? What specific disputes is the ArbCom trying to resolve? Will Beback talk 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, it's my understanding that Cla68 is planning to post much of the same evidence he presented in his Arpil request to open a "Lyndon LaRouche 3" case. That case was reject by the ArbCom. You specifically noted the lack of an ongoing dispute and found insufficient evidence to open a case.[1] Is this case a backdoor way of presenting the same evidence again? There have not been any significant disputes or dispute resolution efforts since then, so I don't see how it would be more appropriate now than five months ago. Will Beback talk 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been open for nine days and no significant evidence has been presented. Since I'm not sure of its actual scope, I'm not preparing any. If this is all there is then the case should be closed. I don't want to see a situation in which a ton of evidence is posted just before the deadline to add evidence, allowing no opportunity for adequate response. Will Beback talk 06:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite acceptable to request some extra time to respond to late posted evidence - I don't see any reason to close as the scope is only just being clarified and users will I expect then present evidence. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where has the scope been clarified? Will Beback talk 21:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger seems to clear up the scope issues. Personally, I would like to see this case run following the closure of the User:Cirt/User:Jayen case, with a focus in this case on the Users that have assisted and have been enablers of User:Cirt's on wikipedia anti Scientology activism and his related long term policy violations, especially his WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations. That would include you/User:Will Beback and User:Chris0/User:Prioryman and User:Jehochman and User:Coffeepusher and recently User:Quigley and a few others ...Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any place where the scope has been clarified. If you like to propose your version as the scope then I suggest you make a motion. Will Beback talk 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am focused on the User:Cirt/User:Jayen466 case at present as that imo is the primary issue - without User:Cirt there is no one, and no policy violating content for the others to enable - I will only present evidence in this case under this portion of the apparent scope, I will not be presenting my scope as "the scope". There are a couple of other issues like Larouche but I have not involvement in them apart from to know that similar related, long term issues exist in that sector as the anti Scientology sector. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case may end up focusing equally on those who cast aspersions and attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological battlefield. Just because somebody disagrees does not mean that every possible method and means should be employed to DESTROY THEM!!!! That appears to be the motivation behind some of the people who've been chasing Cirt, and anybody else who steps up and says "Whoa, not so fast." The rush to denounce and sanction Cirt is one of the worst examples of mob justice on Wikipedia I've ever seen. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, you may be tempted to read Jehochman's statement as a direct threat intended to get you to back off. After all, his edit summary does say "note to Off2riorob" and you have been vocal about Cirt's activities. As someone with experience in Jehochman's ways, I can assure you that if you were to ask him if this were the case, he would very plainly tell you that it is not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, you had best not presume to be my spokesman because you're lousy at it. My statement speaks for itself. Being vocal isn't the problem. The problem is chasing an editor with the intent of applying sanctions, bullying those who denounce such activities, and treating dispute resolution as a mere formality, rather than using dispute resolution in a good faith effort to help correct editing problems. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me provide an example, "Hey Cirt, your zealous editing can cause problems in a collaborative environment. Could you please take care not to add excessive detail to biographical articles, and instead stick to the core facts that are more accurately referenced?" would be a fair criticism. "Cirt, you seem not to be responding to my concerns. Can we get a third party to help sort this out?" might be a follow on comment. There's nothing wrong with making a critical statement, but the approach should be as polite as possible, and the intention should be to correct the problem, not to create the prerequisite conditions for issuing sanctions at ANI or RFAR. Sanctions suck and should be used as little as possible, especially when dealing with editors who have contributed a lot to the project. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are making another attempt to minimize the problems with Cirt's editing and re-frame the issue as one of "bullying" and "mob justice". Attempts at dispute resolution have so far not been successful, but that does not mean that they have not been explored. Your facile suggestions of how the discussion should have been phrased are literally years too late. When I filed an ArbCom enforcement request relating to what I perceived as clear violations of ARBSCI, I was confident that Cirt was aware of the issue and had had every opportunity to change their editing. Other cases of failed dispute resolution have been offered in the evidence already. To suggest, at this point, that dispute resolution has not been adequately explored is simply insulting to the ArbCom members who have undoubtedly considered that possibility and accepted this case anyway. It should be no surprise that editors concerned about neutrality and BLP issues are frustrated with the lack of action related to Cirt, but the issue here is really Cirt's editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

. If you will suspend your assumptions of bad faith against me (eg "smokescreen" in your edit summary) we might try to debug this. Show me please the uninvolve third party voice of reason who you or anybody else has brought in to help resolve this dispute with Cirt. Lobbying for sanctions, head hunting and similar activities do not constitute dispute resolution. Show me the good faith dispute resolution please. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Let's set aside people who might have some sort of ideological axe to grind with Cirt over NRMs. There was a slew of people, over the last year, who have become concerned with his negative editing of BLPs and his puffing up of other BLPs and non-BLP entries. Weren't these people previously uninvolved when they first noted their concerns? Do you really need them all listed to you with diffs? When Delicious Carbuncle and Cirt were engaged over the Jamie Sorrentini situation, many uninvilved users commented that both DC and Cirt should be topic banned from Scientology BLPs. I believe you specifically argued against this. Is your memory failing Mr. Hochman?Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case has now been open for ten days without any significant evidence being added. Cla68 has indicated he's planning to add more evidence, but he has not answered two questions about whether he still plans to do so, or when. It appears that there was no dispute here after all. Will Beback talk 06:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will that is logical fallacy, I would add evidence if the scope was clear and I knew what evidence was permitted. Is that not what you have been asking about for nearly 30? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you. It would be faster and fairer to go back to square one and start with a properly framed request for arbitration setting out e disputes and the parties. arbCom is doing us all a disservice by ignoring normal requirements for a case. Why the rush to do a bad job? Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I understand what has been said earlier, Cirt is not going to present their evidence before 15 August. I assume there will be time allowed for others to present evidence after that. I, for one, intend to wait until after Cirt's evidence is presented. Suggestions that this case should be closed when one of the two named parties is not expected to present until a few days from now seem to be disingenuous. If there are concrete suggestions about how the case could be restructured, perhaps they should be presented instead of simply clamouring for closure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You ignored my polite request. Please link to the prior dispute resolution where you found a rational, uninvolved third party to help resolve your dispute with Cirt. Moreover, Cirt is not a party to this case, so his actions are not relevant here. This case has no defined scope. It should be closed. After Aug 15, or at any time in the future, any interested party can file a new request for arbitration that properly sets forth the dispute, the prior dispute resolution, and a concise list of parties. This improper case reflects very poorly on the Arbitration Committee. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Answered by me already above. Here's your link. I count User:Mkativerata, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Scott MacDonald, User:Lar, and User:Jayron32 all supporting sanctions against Cirt. I see you and a couple of others running interference and wikilawyering the suggestion to death. In fact you were so eager, Hochman, that you mistook Jayron32 for Jayen and asked for his comments to be discounted before you were corrected. I ask you again, is your memory failing you?Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Iswaldo, a request for sanctions at arbitration enforcement is NOT dispute resolution. I want to see examples of talk page discussions or mediation where a third party has counseled Cirt about editing problems. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Jehochman, Cirt's editing was a recognized problem long before I got involved. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to spend any time searching through diffs just because you have asked politely. Your request has changed from "Show me please the uninvolve third party voice of reason who you or anybody else has brought in to help resolve this dispute with Cirt" to "Please link to the prior dispute resolution where you found a rational, uninvolved third party to help resolve your dispute with Cirt" in only a few minutes. If, as you say, Cirt not relevant to this case, I am going to continue to ignore your request, no matter how politely you phrase it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fine. I assert that there has been little to no good faith dispute resolution attempted with Cirt. (If you want to convince me otherwise, please post the links I requested.) Instead, we have witnessed a mob chasing Cirt bringing up multiple and sundry grievances--legitimate mixed with illegetimate. The ends don't justify the means. I am not asserting that Cirt's editing is correct. In fact, I closed the discussion against him in the Santorum naming controversy, and suspect that some of his editing has been incorrect. But, I will never condone the misuse of dispute resolution to settle scores with editorial opponents. The first step to resolving this is to disperse the mob. Then we can address the underlying question of Cirt's editing. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case has now been open eleven days without any significant evidence. I think this may set a record. Will Beback talk 04:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ocurred to you that at least one person may actually have been on vacation for a substantial period of time and was waiting to place evidence? The anxiousness to shut off debate before anyone has spoken is not really in the tradition of any discussion group I can think of. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we waiting for? Will Beback talk 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I was several thousand miles away from home for more than two weeks, I think it is I who may have been one of those who did not provide "instant evidence". And I would like to think that many here had read my note so stating that I would be away. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been very active elsewhere. You'll be adding evidence shortly? Will Beback talk 21:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really mean that? Collect (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been open for nearly twelve days and no one has added any significant evidence. None of the 21 parties announced that they would be delayed in posting. The case has no clear scope and the ArbCom appears to be waiting for the submission of evidence to decide what the case is about. So until evidence is posted we don't know why we're here. So if you are going to post evidence please do so. Will Beback talk 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW you find my four hundred words and diffs to be not "significant"? As I have posted evidence, and this was even noted outside Wikipedia, I think yu may need to purge your cache of the evidence page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC) [2] shows my notce of being away. Sorry if it elided your notice. Collect (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that. But now that I read it, I don't see any allegations of violations of policy. If giving out barnstars to people who agree with you is a problem then that'd require writing a new policy to cover it. Elonka is not a party - should she be? As for the U.S. Labor material, no one claimed it was a BLP violation. The Washington Post is a reliable source for American political activities. There's been no efforts at dispute resolution on these issues. So if that's what this case is about then I don't see why we're here. Will Beback talk 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should wait until others present evidence and see where it leads - right now I am aghast that a person can seriously claim that material removed from one article as a BLP violation is no longer a BLP violation when placed in another article! My evidence was not directed at any single editor, but aimed at showing that the problem exists, and is serious enough that ArbCom should (must) address it. Apparently it is your position that the 800 pound gorilla does not exist <g>. By the way, if ArbCom decides to allow additional editor-specific evidence, I suspect I and others will be able to find sufficient evidence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting a month to learn what this case is about. As for the U.S. Labor material, no one claimed it was a BLP violation. Please identify this 800-pound gorilla so we can address it directly. Will Beback talk 22:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 800 pound-pound gorilla (or in this case 7 metric ton Tyrannosaurus) is the dysfunctional mess that I and several editors (including at least two of the arbitrators) had to deal with October 26-31, 2010 regarding the wild BLP claims being used to suppress any meaningful discussion on the talk pages regarding the use of an article by Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price biography article. As pointed out by one of the editors in the space of only six days four editors had 130 (one hundred and thirty) posts made to their talk pages and was editing-collapsing other editors comments and host of disruptive editing over what was ruled to be a nonexistent BLP issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Cirt is eager to participate in the two ArbCom cases, he'll write up his evidence only because he was asked to do so by ArbCom. It should be clear that as far as Cirt is concerned, the matter was already settled before the start of the case. It is just that some other editors were not satisfied by Cirt's voluntary withdrawal from the problem areas.

It goes against the spirit of Arbitration to argue an old dispute if that dispute is no longer relevant for editing articles. One has to note here that Cirt's opponents have taken the position that an article that is not written according to their interpretation of NPOV and/or BLP is a ground for starting adminstrative action, even if editing that article to correct the problem as they see it, does not lead to any editing disputes with the original editor(s). Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please suspend the assumptions of bad faith. There is no anxiousness to shut off debate. Anybody is welcome at any time to bring a properly framed request for arbitration setting forth the specifics of a dispute with a list of parties and "debate" the matter fully. That hasn't been done here, and our Arbitrators have made an error in starting this case. Nobody seems to agree what the case is about! How can we have a case when nobody agrees on the scope? I've been posting this criticism repeatedly. If anybody was able to clarify, they should have done so by now. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is supposedly about a motion to close this case. As such, I see no reason for comments about Cirt's supposed policy violations or supposed Anonymous-POV pushing to be placed here. There is already an entire case for that, where matters like this can be discussed, with evidence to back them up. NW (Talk) 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Cirt has clearly been shown in the evidence and discussion to have falsely claimed to have withdrawn from sectors he has disrupted and repeatedly over lengthy periods of time violated core policies in. We are waiting for User:Cirt to explain - the idea that he steps back an starts editing free speech legal cases is terrifying. - Lets see what he explains if he decides to - the User:Cirt is an anonymous (group) anti Scientology activist and his whole reason to contribute here is to further his and their anti Scientology activism and their related off wikipedia campaigns - this possibility has clearly been removed from him now and as I see it the user has nothing they want to do here apart from that driving force. Closing a few AFD discussions on a head count won't cut it. If User:Cirt is topic banned and desopped and limited to good article creation in the eight legged arachnid field I don't see a problem moving forward. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, no one has added any evidence to either case that Cirt is a member of Anonymous. Your invective against Cirt is reaching the point of making personal attacks. Will Beback talk 02:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirt has been discussed on Anonymous group chat threads as having assisted them in media file uploads and its indisputably clear that User:Cirt has assisted the group through his editing of wikipedia articles in support of their activism and off wiki campaigns. The fact that you attack me and defend User:Cirt's repeated, and over a period of years, attacks on the living subjects of multiple BLP articles is part of the enabling of his activism at wikipedia that has been a serious part of the problem. Without such enablers like yourself, who are willing to support the User:Cirt's policy violations because of a general support for the User:Cirt's contribution position this would never have been allowed to develop into such a problem. Off2riorob (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're attacking me too. All without any evidence. Will Beback talk 09:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your vocal defense of User:Cirt through attacking others in the User:Cirt's RFC was clear enough and loudly complained about then. I think your support of the User:Cirt over the years is indisputable, and as such your support for his attacking the living subjects of our BLP articles, using wikipedia through policy violating contributions, imo you are partly responsible for the violations. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated any policies or guidelines of this project, and you have not presented evidence to the contrary. Accusing me without evidence is a personal attack. Please stop. Will Beback talk 10:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if your understanding its your enabling and support for User:Cirt's violations that I hold you responsible for, your don't need to have specifically violated any policies for that. Perhaps WP:Meat is the guideline. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that I supported violations of policies. That's an absurd and groundless attack. Will Beback talk 10:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have over a period of years supported and defended User:Cirt's BLP and NPOV policy and guideline violating anti Scientology activism through this project. Its a pretty uncontentious statement that is well known, what part of it do you dispute, that User:Cirt has over a period of years violated core policy .. or that you have been a vocal supporter of him and his editing? - Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Will Beback talk 10:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later you can tell me which part you deny. Off2riorob (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I flatly deny violating any Wikipedia policy. Please do not repeat your accusations until you've provided evidence of violations. Will Beback talk 11:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of User:Cirt's enablers will say the same thing, - "I didn't violate policy" - but over a lengthy period of time you did repeatedly support a policy violator. - the fact is that it is users like yourself that have repeatedly supported the violator User:Cirt at every opportunity for his reform that have continued and supported and enlarged the User:Cirt's ability to violate through your enabling support and that is what has brought us to this place where there is imo no other option and nowhere for User:Cirt to go edit anymore....apart from fair article work on eight legged arachnids that is and no one believes that User:Cirt will take up the mantle of arachnid topic improver.Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Question to Delicious Carbuncle from Prioryman

What was your intention in posting the following on Wikipedia Review? "I am intending to do a monthly thread here about Cirt's Scientology edits, because I would like to help them kick their nasty habit. Cirt, I don't say this in a mean way, but when you edit articles related to Scientology, it makes your fingers and breath smell like Scientology. And no one wants to kiss someone whose breath smells like Scientology." [3]
A:

Thank you in advance for addressing this question that I repeatedly raised in the RfC/U but to which I received no response. Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Mathsci

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard, adpated from previous ArbCom cases. Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct on arbitration pages

2) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard, adapted from previous ArbCom cases. Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BWHAAHAHAAHAAHAAAA....if only this would happen. or if only the clerks would enforce this with minimum 72 hr blocks....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been concerned in particular by the way that Off2riorob has been behaving, and I've raised the issue with Hersfold here [4]. Hersfold did remove some of Off2riorob's comments but it's a shame that he wasn't reined in earlier. I think he needs a firm reminder about not making personal attacks. Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Prioryman - User:Hersfold after you raised your issue with him, as a clerk removed this single comment from me diff - , "In the case of your evidence, it whispers to itself" - it was in reference to the value of your evidence, Hersfold suggested to you that you explain it in detail yourself, in reply to your comment that your evidence "speaks for itself" - As I understood it from some posts I had read, discussion at arbitration is allowed a degree of leeway to assist focus on the issue - I wonder what niceties you expect after your false statements and what was imo and others basically sockpuppetry under a violated false right to vanish claim. I had to waste my time discussing with you without the proper disclosure of your previous involvement in the topic area. I still see your continued editing under this violated RTV username as disruptive. As for the alleged personal attacks - you have deliberately made false claims - that is a simple truth not a personal attack. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:ResidentAnthropologist

Consistent The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One caveat, I agree that mere membership is not a CoI by itself, but employment by a religious group should be treated as a CoI in the same way that it would be for employment by any other organisation that might be the subject of an editing dispute. I suggest mentioning that to avoid opening up a possible CoI loophole. Prioryman (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My principal does not dispute that. Will Beback suggested mere affiliation did as shown in the evidence. No evidence of that being Paid editing has been produced by either side thus that extension is not neededThe Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was thinking about the wider context, not specifically about this case, and I don't mean to suggest that anyone here has been involved in paid editing. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case dealt with editing from the office of a religious organization. We should be consistent or explain any variation. Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the name of the case or editor. Thanks - your memory is obviously better than mine... Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any issue which an editor feels more strongly about than Wikipedia is a conflict of interest. Editors have no conflict of interest if they care less about their religious or spiritual practices than about Wikipedia. But that's not the issue here.

The issue here is whether, in personal interactions on Wikipedia, one may hold a grudge against another editor who has added negative material to an article about a religion. In the context of such an investigation, then religious or spiritual affiliation is a relevant factor. I believe that Off2riorob and Jayen466 have a grudge against Cirt because Cirt has written so much about Osho community. Will Beback talk 22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that belief falls more in the category of supposition than reasonable suspicion supported by hard evidence, of which I've seen none. Everything's possible, of course, but this isn't credible without something to back it up. Prioryman (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 openly admits he was an adherent of Osho. Off2riorob says he was not, but his early editing was exclusively focused on that topic and he has intimate knowledge of the movement. Whether they carry a grudge against Cirt, and whether that has been the cause of their hounding Cirt is, of course, speculation. Will Beback talk 22:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. I don't think speculation has a place here. Certain editors here have been accused of all kinds of things based on nothing more than speculation and innuendo - this has been my primary concern throughout (Googlebombing accusations etc). I think it really does a disservice to fellow Wikipedians to accuse them of wrongdoing based on nothing more than speculation. If you're going to do that, you need to bring hard evidence to the table. Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC

I'm not adding evidence on this matter to the case. I'm just explaining why it was legitimate to discuss, on the RFCU talk page, the allegiances of two editors who have gone after Cirt for years. Will Beback talk 22:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - I had to defend myself against User:Cirt for a couple of years, he was forever draggin me to ANI with his reports - in the beginning I had little idea what was going on and would find myself blocked by User:Yellowmonkey without a warning, after a while, people got wise to it and stopped acting in a knee jerk reaction against me and then I kept away from the user:Cirt as much as possible - and recently all my contact with the User:Cirt was to remove their policy violations - I have no grudge against User:Cirt at all - apart from that I should not have to be repeatedly removing an administrators policy violations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are here admitting that you have had conflicts with him stretching back years.

Getting back to the proposed principle, if I'm Muslim, and I get mad at someone for saying something unpleasant about the Prophet (PBUH), and I follow that user around harassing him, then my faith would be a logical factor to look at when trying to understand my behavior. Likewise, if I held strong political beliefs, and hounded someone who'd expressed an incompatible ideology, then that would be a factor to look at when investigating the hounding. It's a largely separate issue from the conflict of interest issues surrounding editing articles. Will Beback talk 22:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute at all with the User:Cirt apart from their policy violations- the ones I posted in my Cirt/Jayen evidence - I also agree with most of the other complaints of policy violations by User:Cirt in the evidence presented by others there. If User:Cirt had not been violating policy I would be only assisting them , as I have previously done in some of their reports to the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIll you accused a number editors here there is a "clear connection between the anti-"Cirt faction" and Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), Twelve Tribes communities, est/Landmark Education, Transcendental Meditation movement, etc."

You either need to begin to document those connections at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence or I need to propose a "finding of Fact" that you have unable to back them up. Your claims were large part of what derailed the RFC/U, In that statement I have linked more you mention half a dozen groups, you clearly did not suggest Rob an Jayen had connection with all of them. You suggested the anti-Cirt faction. Even Now you claim Rob spent large amount of early edits in Osho article yet you do not provide evidence of it! I tired of you spurious accusation. Start backing up what you say for change: Provide Evidence not conjecture. 00:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talk • contribs)

OK, let's start with Twelve Tribes communities. Is there anyone here who has made substantial edits to the Twelve Tribes communities article? I raise my hand. Will Beback talk 12:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Will Beback

1) Will Beback has repeatedly been uncivil with fellow editors in dispute resolution. Conduct including the casting of aspersions without providing evidence,[5][6][7] taunting, and baiting editors over their alleged religious affiliations.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

evidence is pretty clear on this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Pretty clear"? How is this comment uncivil? [14] Will Beback talk 23:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all provided on the evidence page, review civility guidelines. You entire tirade ridiculous was Ridiculous Will. You throw spurious accusations every-time you enter a conflict Will thats right in the "identifying Incivility" section Will 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the posting that you say is a clear example of incivility:

Off2riorob, you wrote this three years:
oh hello cirt again..are you following me around ? I can do nothing without you appearing as if by magic! I shall take it as a mark of respect that you consider me worthy of tracking (Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

It appears that your relationship with Cirt predates the edits you're complaining about here. Is it incorrect to conclude that your negative views of Cirt date back several years? Will Beback talk 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone would regard that as taunting, baiting, casting aspersions, or any other form of incivility. On this very page Off2riorob has admitted that his poor relations with Cirt date back several years. Will Beback talk 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say Will has a good point here. He's asking a straightforward factual question. I don't think it's evidence of what RA is suggesting. Prioryman (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can go back into every conflict I have observed Will, Whether basing it on affiliation to "Wikipedia Review," Larouche or Scientology. It's a full pattern of Will's using the ad hominem attacks to win disputes. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far your only evidence against me has been from two days of editing an RFCU talk page. If this is going to be the "Will Beback" case then I'd complain that that's not within the scope of the case, and there's been little or no dispute resolution regarding my purported violations. Will Beback talk 23:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIll, You poke people with the sticks hoping they will react. Your conduct there poking Off2riorob with questions about his alleged affiliations with Osho was absurd. On it's own it would not be but look at the Pattern in just that section of RFC. You conduct was inexcusable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is heated discussion but there is a line and Will crossed it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone who has made extensive comments on an RFCU whether there's a history of disputes is not baiting them or poking them with a stick. There is plenty of evidence that Off2riorob cares a great deal about the Osho topic, a topic where Cirt wa very active but edited from what could be called the opposite viewpoint. I don't think that's an issue for this RFAR though. Will Beback talk 00:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this evidence posted? I don't think I've seen it. Prioryman (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your user page. This isn't the topic of this arbitration. Will Beback talk 12:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case about "Manipulation of BLPs". How is incivility relevant? I think you should stick to instances of deleterious editing of BLP articles. This case isn't called "Everything Anybody Ever Did Wrong". Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RA, you are correct that Will often attacks, belittles, and hectors those with whom he disagrees, often accompanied with exhaustive wikilawyering (see here for an example), and his questioning of editors about their religious beliefs at the Cirt RfC is but one example. It is, however, but one example, so perhaps it might help to find some more examples to support your proposal here. One place I would suggest looking is on the talk pages of BLPs in which Will was busy adding or preserving negative information, then check the talk page histories of the editors with whom Will was engaged in content disputes. Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Will often attacks, belittles, and hectors those with whom he disagrees," That's a flagrant personal attack. You've provided no evidence of this. Put up or shut up. Will Beback talk 12:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I have asked you to put up evidence for the accusations and the insinuations you use to try and win disputes. I provided ample evidence of your misconduct in disputes start putting up evidence for all these COI you claimed existed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I offered evidence in the RFCU thread. Will Beback talk 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example. Pretty much anyone who appears to threaten Will Beback's editing agenda is subject to this kind of treatment. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not proven by the evidence of ResidentAnthropologist which relies solely on diffs from the RfC on Cirt. This ArbCom case was surely not devised for ArbCom to adjudicate on the behaviour of selected individuals participating in an RfC/U, where there was heated discussion between participants with widely differing views. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this evidence singularly unimpressive. There has been a lot of gaming of the system going on here, and this is one example: using an RFC/U to doggedly question one editor's motivations - e.g. his anti-cult point of view - while declaring it strictly forbidden to even ask about the inquisitors' perceived pro-cult point of view. ArbCom should show equal respect for the viewpoints of all religious viewpoints, including atheists and skeptics. An RFC/U should not be license for one-sided attack. Wnt (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Will Beback Admonished and Sanctioned

1) Will Beback is admonished for violations of civility policy in casting aspersions against fellow editors. Further violations of this behavior are subject to enforcement by escalating blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fits the evidence, Recidivism can be dealt with also. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

Delicious carbuncle's use of Wikipedia Review

1) Between July 2010–April 2011, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) systematically used the Wikipedia Review forum to mount a campaign against Cirt (talk · contribs). His actions were characterised by an uninvolved admin on WP:AE as "a long campaign against Cirt, having posted about him extensively both on Wikipedia and on Wikipediareview for several months" and "a campaign of bad-faith harassment against another wikipedian".[15] Within a month of receiving a topic and interaction-with-Cirt ban (later overturned) he began posting monthly threads about Cirt's edits. He explicitly stated his intention to use the threads to force Cirt to stop editing articles related to Scientology, as set out in evidence here. His campaign was noticed on Wikipedia and he was asked to desist in February 2011, but did not do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Statement of fact. This relates to the principles of perceived harassment and conduct outside Wikipedia. It also provides background to the following finding of fact concerning abusive editing of a BLP in furtherance of this campaign. See also this proposal by Count Iblis which ties in quite nicely. Prioryman (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Completely outside the scope of the case and ought to be removed by a clerk.Griswaldo (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle's edits to Jamie Sorrentini

2) In December 2010, DC made a number of edits to Jamie Sorrentini, a BLP, to repeatedly add a claim from a contested source. He received multiple warnings to desist from multiple administrators. After he was reported to WP:AE the reviewing administrators called his actions "egregious" and "a deliberate BLP violation as a WP:POINT maneuvre, specifically designed to set Cirt up", characterising it as "a campaign of bad-faith harassment against another wikipedian, conducted at the expense of a BLP subject", as evidenced here. In discussion on the article talk page, Cirt indicated that he had listened to the community's concerns and no longer supported the use of the source that DC was repeatedly adding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Statement of fact. This relates to the principles concerning editing of BLPs and tendentious or disruptive editing. Prioryman (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Delicious carbuncle: I stated clearly in my evidence "Consequently he was topic-banned (later overturned on procedural grounds)". Prioryman (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Delicious carbuncle: HJ Mitchell says of your "misguided attempt" claim: "I'm sure ArbCom will be able to find the appropriate receptacle for that claim." [16] The fact that you make such a claim shows that even now you still don't get why what you did was wrong, and demonstrates the need for preventative action. Prioryman (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: That doesn't change the fact that Cirt had clearly changed his mind by the time DC tried edit-warring the source into the Sorrentini article. The ironic thing is that DC's action seem to have been completely unnecessary - had he desired to take the source out of other articles, it looks like Cirt would not have objected. Cirt even took the issue to the BLP/N to get consensus on the issue.[17] DC had no need to behave disruptively to make a point, not that he should have done even if he had. Prioryman (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my edits to that article: one, two, three, and four. Note that last two are simply restoring the material added in the first two edits after it was removed by User:Cirt. As you can see, I noted that Sorrentini was a Scientologist, sourced to a site that was in use on several other articles at the time. Although Cirt had themselves used that source to identify people as Scientologists, they reverted my changes with the extremely odd claim that there was no consensus to use the source. In subsequent discussion, it was agreed that the source was not reliable and all references were removed, but at the time there was no such consensus. What I should not have done is added Sorrentini to the category Category:American Scientologists. That was an error on my part based on a misreading of WP:BLPCAT and I will not repeat it. To claim that those edits are "manipulation" of a BLP is simply nonsense. The comments made in the ArbCom enforcement request are hard to square with my actual edits and were made, I believe, in a misguided attempt to support fellow admin Cirt. Although Prioryman left it out of their "evidence", the topic ban imposed upon me at that time was subsequently overturned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

While Cirt claimed he had not used truthaboutscientology.com for years, he had reverted it back into a BLP-critical article less than six months before he made that statement, arguing that it was reliable. --JN466 13:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of Delicious carbuncle's actions

3) DC's actions gave rise to a strong perception, described by reviewing admins here, that he was harassing Cirt and seeking to orchestrate off-wiki pressure as a means of browbeating him into abandoning a topic area. He persisted over a period of 10 months and his conduct was premeditated and suffused with malice, as particularly indicated by this comment. In conjunction with this campaign he repeatedly manipulated a BLP, despite very strong warnings, to add contested material. This caused significant disruption, resulted in material potentially harmful to the reputation of a living person being added to the article, and led to a topic and interaction ban being imposed on him (subsequently set aside on a technicality). His motive was clearly connected to his anti-Cirt campaign. Instead of backing off he doubled down on his campaign and began posting monthly threads about Cirt, explicitly to increase pressure on the latter. He ignored requests to desist by two other editors. DC's actions contributed to a poisoned editing environment on Wikipedia and needlessly inflicted stress on Cirt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Obvious corollaries to the first two findings of fact. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Delicious carbuncle: This is already documented in evidence and dealt with in the first two findings of fact. I repeatedly raised this issue in the RfC/U but received no reply from you, particularly concerning your explicit statement that you wanted to force Cirt to stop editing in topic area by constantly pressuring him through WR. It's as clear a statement of intent to harass as I've ever read. Prioryman (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Delicious carbuncle:

It would be helpful if Prioryman either provided diffs and links to substantiate his accusations. I am accused, in essence, of "orchestrating" some form of off-wiki campaign to "harass" and "browbeat" Cirt. So far as I can tell from what has been presented, the totality of this campaign of harassment was noting in an off-wiki forum which of Cirt's edits appeared to violate Cirt's own pledges ([18] & [19]) in regard to editing articles related to the Church of Scientology. As an attempt to "browbeat" or "harass" Cirt, this seems unlikely to be effective unless Cirt were to deliberately seek out and read the off-wiki forum. I would also suggest that Prioryman strike this version entirely and attempt to express his views without the inflammatory and distorting language used here. Unless diffs are provided to back up these accusations, unsubstantiated allegations like this fall squarely into the realm of a personal attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is completely out of scope and ought to be removed by a clerk.Griswaldo (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if this section by formerly vannished user belongs anywhere it belongs in the cirt/jayen arbitration. I don't think the diffs show what is alleged however. at least not as strongly as it is worded. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Delicious carbuncle banned from Wikipedia

1) Due to egregious and sustained violations of Wikipedia's harassment policy and abusive editing of a BLP to gain advantage in a dispute with another editor, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is really the only remedy appropriate for such serious infractions. I've never come across a more persistent and aggressive off-wiki campaign of harassment by an editor in good standing targeting another editor in good standing. Normally that sort of thing is done by banned users (and tends to be related to why they were banned in the first place). Likewise, using a BLP as a tool in a dispute with another editor is - as HJ Mitchell said in December 2010 - egregious. It was persistent, continued despite multiple very strong warnings and resulted in topic and interaction bans. (In hindsight it is unfortunate that they were set aside on a technicality, as there was no doubt about DC's culpability). Whatever legitimate concerns DC may have had, this kind of conduct is absolutely unacceptable, particularly when it involves inflicting potential harm on completely innocent and uninvolved BLP subjects. DC's culpability is all the greater for his actions with the Sorrentini BLP so clearly being related to his anti-Cirt campaign – there is simply no way that it should be acceptable for any editor to manipulate a BLP to gain advantage in a dispute with another editor. He got away with it because of technicalities but I think a strong message needs to be sent about the unacceptability of such conduct. Prioryman (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Off2riorob: I ask myself what your reaction would have been if Cirt or I had done anything like what DC has done. I think the answer is obvious. Is it too much to ask for consistent enforcement of the rules on harassment and BLP editing? Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Off2riorob: I'm not for one moment complaining about DC in relation to anything he has done in regard to me. This solely concerns his actions in matters in which I have been wholly uninvolved, and which are germane to the scope of this case. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Griswaldo: The answer to your question is that Delicious carbuncle abusively manipulated a BLP in the course of a lengthy campaign against Cirt. That's not just my judgement, it's what the reviewing admin at the time specifically stated. Banning is an appropriate remedy because of the extreme egregiousness of what he did - a message needs to be sent to others that such conduct is totally unacceptable in what is supposed to be a community of editors - and because he shows no sign of accepting the wrongness of what he did. Prioryman (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this related to the "Manipulation of BLPs"? If there is a harassment campaign, why not report it at WP:ANI and see if the community can deal with it? Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It specifically involved the manipulation of a BLP in a bid to make a point against Cirt, in furtherance of a campaign of harassment that DC was waging on- and off-wiki. The stated scope of this case is to cover "partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs", which is exactly what DC has done in this instance. Prioryman (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Delicious carbuncle:

I will, of course, accept whatever sanctions ArbCom deems appropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Severe, undue and partisan and boomerang come to mind. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman: My focus is as I have said - the repeated serious policy violations on wiki by User:Cirt - If a User follows such a path - there will naturally be a reaction, but the violator (User:Cirt) is the cause and the primary issue here. You have a similar history and imo you are the violator attempting to point at the people complaining about your violations and blaming them for reporting you. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman - as I have said to you before in relation to your RTV - what goes around comes around. If a User has spent years using wikipedia and their skills and authority here to demean and attack a group of living people that they oppose off wiki - then squealing -ow I am being discussed and my dubious editing history and contributions is under discussion at wikipedia review is quite frankly laughable and to be expected completely. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is news to me. What group of people has Prioryman been demeaning and attacking? Please, when you post things like that, assume that some readers might not know the whole story. Could you also put forth a few diffs to demonstrate some of these heinous actions. Jehochman ^Talk 00:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prioryman's contributions here at en wikipedia have been controlled and restricted for some time, he has been restricted at Arbitration from Scientology and climate change sectors after his repeated and extensive policy violations in both areas - He had his adminship removed because of his violations. I am not clued up but that basically is it as I understand - Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the sanctions and loss of adminship, and disappointed by Prioryman's errors. But I don't know that Prioryman has been "demean and attack a group of living people". Be careful not to just repeat stuff you hear without checking the facts yourself (and having the diffs to back it up). Jehochman ^Talk 00:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that comment was more about User:Cirt if you read it back. User:Prioryman's arbitration editing restrictions have curtailed his violating additions in recent times. The idea as in this thread request that User:DC should be banned from the project for pointing at a repeat policy violator is part of the actual problem this arbitration has it seems been set up to attempt to direct editors and correct. Searching the editng restrictions ... User:Prioryman is banned from contributing to anyWP:BLP article - is that right Jehochman? Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is - User:Prioryman/User;ChrisO's previous arbcom sanctions. This was in the Climate change arbitration where User:Prioryman either jumped ship and asked for Right to vanish or was sanctioned in his absence. (feel free to clarify) User:ChrisO has been sanctioned four times in previous arbcom cases: warned for edit warring, inappropriate use of admin tools, and behavior in the Kosovo case, admonished in the Israeli apartheid case, banned from BLPs and use of admin tools within the Scientology topic, admonished in the Macedonia 2 case, desysopped for long-term editing and behavior issues in Macedonia 2. - how this violating Right to vanish user has the nerve to request another person is banned from the project is incomprehensible - Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A warning may be appropriate, but a site ban is excessive. [20] --JN466 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to put the abusive editing of the BLP into perspective, note that Sorrentini and her husband Tiziano Lugli do indeed consider themselves Scientologists (or at least did in July 2010). Both attended the 2010 Independent's Day weekend for example, an inaugural meeting for independent Scientologists who have broken with the Miscavige-led Church, but not with the Scientology religion: [21][22][23]). Also [24] There has for some time been a separate category, Category:Independent Scientologists, and while I don't propose adding Sorrentini to this category as long as there isn't evidence of mainstream media interest, the information DC added wasn't actually defamatory in my view. --JN466 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this proposed sanction is completely over the top, and is based on evidence that is not within the cope of the case in any case. If Prioryman wants to start an RfC on Delicious Carbuncle he is more than welcome, but since when does alleged off wiki harassment have anything to do with the editing of BLPs?Griswaldo (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noting one of my "proposed findings" below, and trusting in the good sense of the members. Collect (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Climate Change case Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Broadly speaking, I like this approach. This illustrates nicely the ways in which this case has similarities to the Climate Change case, whereas there are limits to the similarities with the Noleander case. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living persons

5) Any claim regarding a living person, or living person within a group, religion, economic group or social opinion group, must meet exceedingly high standards of sourcing. Opinions regarding any such person, religion, group, etc. must be clearly stated as opinion and not as fact, and must not be WP:UNDUE for the article in which it is placed. Categorization of any such person, group, etc. must also be exceedingly well-sourced, and can not ever be based on opinions alone. All such articles must abide scrupulously by Wikipedia policies. Even "horrible" people and groups must not have articles stating that they are horrid, or articles balanced to imply such.

Replaced with:

Any claim regarding a living person, or living person within a group, religion, economic group or social opinion group, must meet exceedingly high standards of sourcing. Opinions regarding any such person, religion, group, etc. must be clearly stated as opinion and not as fact, and must not be WP:UNDUE for the article in which it is placed. Categorization of any such person, group, etc. must also be exceedingly well-sourced, and can not ever be based on opinions alone. All such articles must abide scrupulously by Wikipedia policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed extention of prior BLP results in other cases Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to the ArbCom to "extend" BLP or any other policy. But regardless of that, you appear to be suggesting that we should not even imply that Charles Manson was associated with bad activities, and that any negative information about him must be "balanced" be even more positive material. That would toss NPOV out the door. Will Beback talk 08:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to avoid straw issues - Manson should have the facts laid out in his article, which are strongly supported as facts by reliable sources. He should not have John Doe's opinion of him as "reincarnation of Hitler" added, nor should he be listed in [[Category:Hitler reincarnations]]. I trust this makes what I thought was clear in the above text even more clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the text to which I was responding. It's confusing to delete text afte people have commented. 22:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence about this. Will Beback talk 01:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals to extend BLP to groups have been rejected repeatedly. Will Beback talk 03:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you note that one of the core issues of the entire case is about the treatment of "cults." If we do not consider "cults" to be "groups" then you assert that nothing about "cults" (for example) should be covered by any BLP policies? I disagree, as do the committee, I trust. Collect (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy applies to living individuals.

Cities and nations are made up of living people, so should the BLP policy apply to those as well? How about companies? Associations? Political parties? They too are made up of living people. Will Beback talk 06:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- perhaps you did not read the paragraph. Cities are not "groups of people" nor are nations "groups of people" where I specified what the groups were. Groups are living people within a "group, religion, economic group or social opinion group." Thus the Climate-email-senders were found to be a BLP issue on Wikipedia even when not addressed as individuals. Members of a family are a "group." Members of a "cult" are a "group." And so on. The premise is that any article specifi=ying living people must adhere to BLP. Period. I am sorry you view this as heinous, but it is the only way to go. Did you realize Anders Breivik is now in scores of articles, mainly on topics barely connected to him? And that he is listed as the sole "notable member" of a major political party in Norway? That the gun he used now has his biographical material added to the article? That he is now the sole Norwegian example for Christian terrorism? I can not recite all of the articles with anything remotely like a straight face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing very small groups, say of a dozen people or less, it's hard to avoid making generalizations that could be readily assigned to the individuals. But larger groups, like the 100-member US Senate, are large enough that comments are not easily attached to the individuals in it. Writing about a group that includes thousands, millions, or even a billion people is not like writing about a single individual. As I wrote above, previous efforts to extend BLP to groups have been rejected by the community, and it would be inappropriate for the ArbCom to do so without community support or input. Will Beback talk 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a "new religious group" has 10,000 members - would BLP not apply to claims which give an "opinion" such as (say) "Gnarphists are megalomaniacal" even if there is a "reliable source" for that general statement? Sorry Will - the facts of prior cases and the BLP rules do not disappear just because a group is too large for you. This case arose from the ashes of the TM, and Scientology cases among many others, and either the committee deals with this ongoing issue or it will have countless future cases. The only real solution, in my opinion, is for the committee to adopt specific principles at some point or another, and I think this is a reasonable prnciple to adopt. Else we shall continue to have "But John Doe studied Gnarph books, so he is clearly therefore properly labelled a Gnarphist" and the like. Elimination of such contentious "opinions" from BLP-related articles is an essential if Wikipedia is to advance. Or were you truly unaware of the "cult" BLP problem where the "cults" do, indeed, have more than a handful of people? Are you saying that ArbCom was wrong in the TM, Climate Change, and Scientology decisions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't have special rules for new religious movements. BLP applies to individuals, not groups. Maybe someone could write a new policy on groups. As for previous ArbCom cases, please link to the findings you're referring to. BLPs were not a significant issue in the TM case. Will Beback talk 22:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The part at the end, about "horrible" people, obviously needs some work, but up to that point the general idea is a useful one. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC) "Horrible" now removed, and moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should carefully consider whether you would neutrally enforce this in relation to the Tiananmen Square Protests. Or actions by the supporters of Muammar Gaddafi in the Libyan Civil War. I think that BLP has too often been a strong double standard for white/wealthy/Western persons versus the others. Please do not consider extending the policy to "groups, etc."! Wnt (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

BLP violations exist in matters regarding political, economic, religious and social areas

1) Editors with specific points of view regarding political, economic, religious and social issues have often violated WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in articles relating to living people and groups of living people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence educed here and in the past ArbCom decisions. More cites readily available - but I am earnestly trying to address the topic of the case as set forth at the outset. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide links to the evidence? Will Beback talk 06:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have somewhere over five hundred links (heck more if I link all the past ArbCom BLP cites!) if and only if the arbitrators ask for them. I am beginning to feel like I am in an anechoic chamber. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You write Editors with specific points of view... How do we know what points of views editors hold? Do we first conduct a psychological examination of each editor? I think that any principle based on wholesale speculation about editors' personal beliefs is inappropriate and unenforceable. Will Beback talk 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is clear and imo quite a problem - policy needs tightening imo to let people know that partisan editing is not acceptable or beneficial and that editors showing a pattern of such editing will be quickly restricted from contributing in the related sector. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Every noticeboard used at en.wikipedia is full of examples nearly every day. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly astonishing. Obviously there are a lot of living persons involved in such areas. There's no need for special policies or precedents for every possible intersection of two large sets of articles - especially when the proposed "political, economic, religious and social" set has no clear definition or recognition in policy. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

2) Editors with specific points of view regarding political, economic, religious and social issues have sometimes exhibited ownership in articles relating to living people and groups of living people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See User:Collect/counting edits and colloquy therein, which I feel demonstrates that some editors so dominate the total number of edits on WP:BLP articles that "ownership" becomes apparant. Also User:Collect/BLP showing comments from such an editor. And [25] showing an example thereof. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at User:Collect/counting edits does not include any evidence that number of edits alone either results in ownership, or in the degradation of articles. As for the general principle, I imagine that article ownership is probably always the result of editors having a specific point of view regarding the topic. That's so obvious that it doesn't need to be pointed out. Will Beback talk 06:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The feeling of "ownership" is much more related to the number of reverts than the number of total edits. Automated tools to track the number of reverts may indeed be useful. But this should not be limited to the intersection with BLPs - "ownership" is just as much a problem anywhere else. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour issues in this case

3) Editors seem to have forgotten the basis for this case.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

A tad obvious and stated here only to affirm I am neither deaf nor blind. (Juvenal?) Will made a point that he did not know that material was removed from one Larouche article on the basis of BLP concerns (nothing to do with the subject - insinuation and anonymous sources does seem to be a BLP rationale, no? which he then implanted into another Larouche article. Such statements cause me to wince. We also have some who think "evidence" means "attack someone" especially an attack totally unrelated to BLP and this case. More wincing. And then there are those who think the best thing is to just destroy all BLP standards. Major wince. I suggest the arbitrators are able to discern readily which editors argue thusly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs for the statements you claim that I've made? Will Beback talk 06:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted evidence, you asserted: [26]

The case has been open for nearly twelve days and no one has added any significant evidence. None of the 21 parties announced that they would be delayed in posting. The case has no clear scope and the ArbCom appears to be waiting for the submission of evidence to decide what the case is about. So until evidence is posted we don't know why we're here. So if you are going to post evidence please do so.

Then you posted: [27]

I've been waiting a month to learn what this case is about. As for the U.S. Labor material, no one claimed it was a BLP violation.

And I suggest this means Will did not apparently connect ''nothing to do with the subject - insinuation and anonymous sources with any concern at all about BLP requirements about "insinuation and anonymous sources" or else that he simply did not read the edit summary. As to Will's claim that he never said he did not know that material was removed from one Larouche article on the basis of BLP concerns, I trust the diff above shows that he did. Note that I have scrupulously tried to avoid attacking other editors in this proceeding. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other news: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_FuFoFuEd as it now stands is an admirable example. Collect (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where was it claimed that it was a BLP violation? So far as I can tell, it was called a BLP violation only by Waalkes, an SPA, and then only because it was not directly related to the article it was in.[28] So it incorrect to say that moving the material to the U.S. Labor Party article was a BLP violation. There have been no complaints about since the move. Will Beback talk 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that material based on "insinuation and anonymous sources" is perfectly proper in a BLP by any chance? I had honestly thought that would be a quite untenable position to hold, but you are welcome to assert it, I suppose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that 1) that's an inaccurate assertion 2) it was made by an SPA 3) there have been no objections to the material in the current location. It is not a "clear violation of BLP" as alleged on the evidence page. Will Beback talk 01:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Example of such behaviour even within this section <g>. So now the charge being bandied is that Off2riorob is an SPA? What issue, precisely, is he an "SPA" on? How many articles are encompassed by this "SPA"? Cheers - I like it when others make my case so clearly. Collect (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What behavior? Are you seriously saying that Waalkes is not an SPA? I think you'd have to be blind to miss that. Will Beback talk 06:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob was the one who deleted the material and gave the edit summary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob isn't alleging a BLP violation. This is getting a bit obscure. Are you alleging a clear BLP violation of the material in its current location? Please give your complete view on why this is BLP-violating material in the U.S. Labor Party article. Will Beback talk 12:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough: nothing to do with the subject - insinuation and anonymous sources certainly sounds to everyone else like a BLP violation. Cheers. Anything more can easily go to the Talk page, it is not showing your arguments in a good light here. Collect (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What truly mystifies me is that this arbitration seems to be focusing a lot on material about the U.S. Labor Party, which is not a BLP; which I would agree with Off2riorob (!) belongs in an article about the party but not about a person with no evidence of direct involvement. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was a single diff in my evidence which Will seems to dwell on - it is not a major part of the case. It appears, however, to directly impact on Will's possible problems with findings yet to be made by the committee. By the way, the anonymously sourced claims about living people would, indeed, seem to be anonymously sourced claims about living people no matter what article they are in. By the way, can you tell me where Off2riorob said that this anonymously sourced material did not raise BLP concerns? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, not that he's an impartial arbiter, has indicated he doesn't see a problem with the material in its current location.[29] I don't see where the material mentions "anonymous sources". Just the opposite, it's pretty clear that the named people are the sources. If you wish to represent this as a flagrant BLP violation, then please explain your justification that characterization. Will Beback talk

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently

unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:BLPGROUP was written to cover only very small groups - dozens rather than hundreds. Cla68, below, gives no reason why BLP should be selectively extended to cover certain groups. Also, an ArbCom case is not the right way to write policy. If folks want to argue for changes to it then they should make proposals at WT:BLP. Will Beback talk 00:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dozens rather than hundreds? Really? Where does it say that? Let me answer for you. It doesn't. It simply talks about "small groups."Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says it on the policy talk page where the text was proposed and agreed to. Scientology, with an estimated 20,000 members, is not even close to being a "small group". Even a few thousand is not a small group. Ten is a small group. Will Beback talk 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I don't know about Scientology. If you say a few thousand I'm assuming no it wouldn't apply. My real question, to Wnt, was if that's what he was aiming for.Griswaldo (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining "religion," Wnt? In some mainstream typologies a "religion," strictly speaking, is much larger and much more well established than a cult or an NRM. I would agree if you are following that view. Many of the groups that have been called cults, are so small that they would most probably not be excluded from BLP, per the very policy you quote. If this is aimed specifically at Scientology I'm not sure I can say earnestly where they fall in such a scheme. In fact, IMO they're not a religious group at all, and certainly not a political party. But I know they have religious status legally, and that NRM scholars tend to treat them as an NRM, and cult critics tend to call them a cult.Griswaldo (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Cults and new religious movements probably should be included in the BLP rules. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "religion" in a very diffuse sense above. My feeling is if it's notable enough for Wikipedia to cover, a "new religious movement" will almost never be small enough to be covered under BLPGROUP, unless it's a group like the Manson Family or Heaven's Gate that gains notability by some unusual means. Wnt (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Example 6

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Evidence from ResidentAnthropologist

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

RA, what does your evidence have to do with the scope of this case, "Manipulation of BLPs"? Will Beback talk 22:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Roger, "By long tradition cases examine the conduct of all the parties, and go pretty much where that leads.That applies as much to the "Manipulation of BLPs" case as any other" In that statement As Roger Indicated your spurious accusations and absurd conduct in RFC/U is the same arena as PrioryMan stuff. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the case is "manipulation of BLPs", not "miscellaneous complaints about 21 different editors". Will Beback talk 00:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs. Are conduct issues around the rfc/u in play for this case? Roger statement's suggest they are.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:A_NRM_Researcher/Wikipedia_Cult_Wars. This page, by its title, its contents, and its cross-space redirect Wikipedia:CULTWARS, indicates a battleground mentality. He created it in June 2010 and made hundreds of edits to it until the account was blocked in October. It's a selective listing, which appears to omit any Twelve Trees-related disputes and in which he assigns himself only a minor part in this "war". Separately, using three different accounts at once, all writing about the same general topic, is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I think it would be fair to ask RA if he has used any other accounts. Will Beback talk 06:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence from Waalkes

Waalkes (talk · contribs) posts a complaint that I moved to the U.S. Labor Party some text which was deleted from the Lyndon LaRouche article. Collect (talk · contribs) also refers to the same edit. The material was deleted, without any discussion, by Off2riorob (talk · contribs). On the talk pages, the only objections had been raised by single purpose accounts. The material is sourced to the Washington Post, which is among the most reliable sources for American politics. It is apparently based on direct reporting and is not a violation of BLP in the Labor Party article. In short, the material in the U.S. Labor Party does not violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Will Beback talk 12:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Will Beback is misrepresenting the evidence I posted. The material from the Washington Post is not "direct reporting," it is an opinion in the form of innuendo. It is a BLP violation to add it to either article because it does not involve either LaRouche or the US Labor Party directly. To include it because "some unnamed people suggest that LaRouche supporters may have been involved in foul play" is a violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops. People who push POV like to argue that if something appears in a newspaper in an article that also includes the subject's name, then it is fair to include it in the subject's article. This is poor judgment for any Wikipedia article, and not just BLPs. Waalkes (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This content was under discussion somewhere, I don't really remember where, perhaps BLP noticeboard.. (I could likely find it if required) - I read the discussion and agreed the content was a bit tangential in the subjects BLP and boldly removed it - personally I never looked back to see what happened. I got a nudge a few days later on my talkpage that the material I removed had been inserted to the Labor Party - personally as it was kept out of the BLP I was happy with that as I said - User_talk:Off2riorob/Archive_11#Let_you_know - Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by John Lilburne

"Almost all of the BLP issues have at their source current news events. It doesn't matter whether the event happened last week, or 10 - 40 years ago. The sourcing is almost all news reportage. Whether it is the ravings of the Norwegian child killer, or the ravings of a media controversialist, it might be news as entertainment but it should not be added to the articles of the subjects they rave about." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence#Evidence presented by John Lilburne

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What evidence? All I see is an essay. Will Beback talk 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and other periodicals may print breaking news, but they also conduct investigations and in-depth analysis. If we eliminated all news stories from BLPs we'd not only lose most sources, but we'd probably have to delete half of the biographies, since so many articles are based purely on newspapers or magazines. Will Beback talk 03:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone whose mind is not closed tighter than a rats arse, or so open that their brain has fallen out, there is plenty of evidence there. But to spell it out, you cannot source a NPOV article from news reports. This is because news reports are not neutral. They are predominately sensational, agenda driven, and frequently written by either the subject or the subject's detractor. Back in the 1970s there was a book written by one of the senior members of the National Union of Journalists ('Guardian' or 'Times' father of chapel), I forget the name and title ("How to use the press"?), but not the lessons, which were very effective.

The book taught me that if I wanted to get a story into the press, then I should slant the press release so that is it had a nice hook to suite the particular publication POV, and to construct the release so that the journalist had a minimal of work to make MY copy suitable for publication. If I did the job well my press release got reported verbatim. Now back in the 1970s it was radical stuff written for activists and trades unionists, the mainstream caught up in mid 1980s and then we got PR consultants and spin-doctors, and now everyone does it: politicians, companies, celebrities, single issue pressure groups, science foundations, et al. The execution has become a skilled, well paid job, and profession. You can see it happen with WMF stories in the press, you get batches of them all on the same theme, all with the same slant, all using similar phrases. Articles about WMF are no different from other articles in the press. Make no mistake the majority of press articles are not independently researched, they are most often supplied by sources that hold a stake in the issue, and the more that an article relies on such sources the more BLP issues will accumulate. John lilburne (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is cited to a single news source.: Battle of Do Ab. Is it an NPOV or BLP violation because of that? Will Beback talk 11:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a BLP issue there? However, we know from both the Vietnam war and to a certain extent the both Gulf Wars that reliance on a single source,

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.

particularly one that has an stake in the issue, often turns out to be wrong. John lilburne (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this is a very important observation. I don't have a good idea how to work this into the blp policy and how to deal with the myriad of AFD's that would come from restriction on use of news sources for notability in blp's. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Lilburne hit the nail squarely on the head. --JN466 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is nonsense. There have certainly been problems with the way that some news stories have been used in some articles. That is a long way from saying that current news stories shouldn't be used in any article. That's far too sweeping. It's an argument for saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have any articles on current events, as there would be no way of sourcing them if they didn't use news reporting. That is not going to be acceptable to the vast majority of the community. Wikipedia is a very well-established and well-regarded summariser of major news events and we have an entire section on the Main Page on current news events. A proposition like this is as extreme and impractical as a proposition that BLP should be abolished. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is simply not a news aggregator. There is nothing wrong with taking current events and aggregating stories from reliable sources and keeping abreast with the 24 hour news cycle, but that's not what a tertiary source does. Tertiary sources are for established facts, you know the really reliable stuff that could even be considered "common knowledge." I think there are more in the community who disagree with you than you think Prioryman. I, for one, think that we ought to get with the program of being an encyclopedia or else find a new identity (see my linked comment below).Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that "current news stories shouldn't be used in any article". But it's true that there is often something wrong about the way they are used, which is something you concede as well. Sometimes it's not even mainstream news, but blogs. So I don't think we are in disagreement here. What's hard to pinpoint, and legislate for, is where exactly the line is crossed. --JN466 19:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me illustrate what I mean with an example I saw first-hand of news sources being misused for partisan purposes. Last year a right-wing Israeli tabloid newspaper ran a story about Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa, who chaired a very controversial UN commission on Israel's 2008 Gaza War. The story claimed that Goldstone, while serving as an appeal judge in apartheid South Africa, sentenced many people to death. It explicitly aimed to discredit Goldstone's reputation as a champion of human rights. It was an obvious partisan attack and factually wrong. Yet a number of editors repeatedly sought to edit-war a lengthy, mostly one-sided and completely undue-weight account of this claim, even including accusations that he was equivalent to a Nazi war criminal, into the article (see e.g. [30]). There were also repeated blatant violations of BLP, such as using blogs as sources. This material was eventually kept out of the article due to the objections of several other editors including myself, though not without a great deal of trouble. The lessons I drew from this are: 1) news sources are not automatically bad but their use has to be carefully considered; (2) we already have rules on undue weight but in this case they were not being followed - I think this is the real root of the problem John alludes to; and (3) editors spend far too much time arguing about whether a source can be considered "reliable" and not enough time considering whether it is accurate. Where BLPs are concerned, accuracy must be a primary objective. Prioryman (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the heat of the new cycle accuracy is rarely possible to establish to satisfaction. Also, even if it is we rely on consensus to allow that accuracy to be reflected. If a piece of information is particularly controversial, and therefore also particularly desirable for one side of a POV war, this becomes even harder. You say people waste time doing such and such. If we didn't rely so heavily on news in these situations less time would be wasted.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. The claim being made was demonstrably wrong at the time that it was published. Appeal court judges don't sentence anyone, they only rule on lower courts' verdicts. It also completely contradicted 30 years' worth of published accounts of Goldstone's career. Those are massive WP:REDFLAGs, and believe me they were pointed out by myself and others. However, the editors pushing this material insisted that the red flags should be ignored and the material should be included in the article right now as it had been published by a "reliable source" - never mind the inaccuracy. That is primarily a behavioural problem. Getting BLPs right is not straightforward, as it involves an intersection of a lot of different policies, but my experience is that BLP problems are more often the result of editors being reckless and misusing sources than the sources themselves being inherently bad. Obviously some sources are, like tabloids, but there are many news sources that are of an extremely high quality. It's wrong to argue that news sources are not an appropriate source for encyclopedic information and you will not attract any support from the wider community from this - it might excite a few BLP vigilantes but not sensible people. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that news sources can never be trusted, or that they can never be used in an encyclopedia. The problem is that news sources may often pose unique problems. 1) Again, in the heat of the news cycle the processes you seem to rely on to ensure accuracy simply cannot be trusted to work. 2) Years later news sources that generated information at the time of the event may still pose a problem if they are contradicted by other, more reliable sources but one fails to get a consensus when the issue is discussed. News sources should always be treated with caution, and should, when better sources are available be given less weight, especially if those news sources were generated soon after the event in question. The problem is, once again, that people do not abide by that approach and indeed when confronted often fight hard against it. In other words without consensus one's hands are tied. By the way how many other tertiary sources do you know that use news sources directly the way we do? I doubt you can name any.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I also agree that news sources are at the heart of the problem. I made a comment recently about this problem that expresses my views generally on the matter. It doesn't just effect BLPs but that is an area where I think we see the most obvious damage to the project.Griswaldo (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news is an invaluable tool. While it is true that many nuances about a story will emerge only in time, Wikipedia readers don't want to wait, and they shouldn't be forced to. By collating many dozens of news stories from all over the world, Wikipedia gives a much better view of the topic than any one of them. That is the essence of being encyclopedic. No, you won't find find stories like that in your granddaddy's old Encyclopedia Brittannica set. But it's the sort of good writing that one finds in works by Noam Chomsky and similar high quality academic tertiary sources in the liberal arts. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: biographies have narrative, they are not simply a staccatoed stumble from one press cutting to another, they provide analysis and context. And you simply won't find a news stories from all over the world that have independently address some aspect in the life of an obscure academic from Snakesville Florida. I may be mistaken but hasn't Noam Chomsky (one of my early heroes, before I killed them all), criticised reliance on news articles as independent sources, in much the same way as I've done here. John lilburne (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Mathsci

Mathsci mentions the book Misunderstanding Cults, which was an effort by top religious scholars to depolarise academic debate, and find middle ground. As he says, some reputable contributors critique Lewis and Melton. However, there are equally reputable contributors in the book critiquing scholars who hold broadly opposing views to Lewis and Melton, say, Stephen A. Kent and Benjamin Zablocki, on theoretical and methodological grounds. The book presents both sides of the debate.

Wikipedia similarly has to present views from across the academic spectrum of opinion -- we need to reflect both the Kents and the Meltons of religious scholarship. If Mathsci's evidence was meant to impugn Melton's and Lewis' standing as reliable sources, this will not fly.

Melton writes encyclopedias for Gale, is one of the most prolific contributors to Encyclopedia Britannica, and one of the most widely cited scholars in the field, both in scholarship [31] and the media [32]. His Encyclopedia of American Religions, now in its 8th edition, has been the standard reference work in the field for 25 years.
Lewis is likewise widely cited and has written multiple reference works for top publishers, including both Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. He has been quoted in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and others. [33]

These are mainstream scholars, among the top sources as defined by our sourcing policies and guidelines. --JN466 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In his evidence Mathsci mentions, "[t]he phenomenon of what has sometimes been called 'cult apologist'," but apparently doesn't understand that the very term is a slur that is not used by academics. It is discussed by academics because cult critics use the term to demean the academics they don't agree with. Likewise academics don't use the term "cult bashers," which also appears in the book Mathsci has referenced, Misunderstanding Cults. These are both hyperbolic in the context of that book, which according to the reviews I just read, appears itself to be controversial to some degree or another. One of the major criticisms is that book isn't balanced. While most of the critical scholars one could ever name are represented, many others who are less critical are not. In fact a few scholars, like James T. Richardson, dropped out of the project all together because he felt it was too divisive, and the book's editors themselves point out that "some colleagues in the academic establishment were ‘highly critical’ of the prospective book" (from the book review by Richard Singleberg in the Journal of Contemporary Religion). The bigger problem with Mathsci's evidence, however, is it's apparent lack of connection to this case. What exactly are you alleged regarding BLPs? Are you claiming that Residentanthropologist is sugar coating the BLPs of scholars that anti-cult activists are calling "cult apologists?" Is that the BLP issue?Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 1,110: / Line 1,110: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
-::In his evidence Mathsci mentions, "[t]he phenomenon of what has sometimes been called 'cult apologist'," but apparently doesn't understand that the very term is a slur that is not ''used'' by academics. It is ''discussed'' by academics because cult critics use the term to demean the academics they don't agree with. Likewise academics don't use the term "cult bashers," which also appears in the book Mathsci has referenced, [[Misunderstanding Cults]]. These are both hyperbolic in the context of that book, which according to the reviews I just read, appears itself to be controversial to some degree or another. One of the major criticisms is that book isn't balanced. While most of the critical scholars one could ever name are represented, many others who are less critical are not. In fact a few scholars, like [[James T. Richardson]], dropped out of the project all together because he felt it was too divisive, and the book's editors themselves point out that "some colleagues in the
+::In his evidence Mathsci mentions, "[t]he phenomenon of what has sometimes been called 'cult apologist'," but apparently doesn't understand that the very term is a slur that is not ''used'' by academics. It is ''discussed'' by academics because cult critics use the term to demean the academics they don't agree with. Likewise academics don't use the term "cult bashers," which also appears in the book Mathsci has referenced, [[Misunderstanding Cults]]. These are both hyperbolic in the context of that book, which according to the reviews I just read, appears itself to be controversial to some degree or another. One of the major criticisms is that book isn't balanced. While most of the critical scholars one could ever name are represented, many others who are less critical are not. In fact a few scholars, like [[James T. Richardson]], dropped out of the project all together because he felt it was too divisive, and the book's editors themselves point out that "some colleagues in the academic establishment were ‘highly critical’ of the prospective book" (from the book review by Richard Singleberg in the ''Journal of Contemporary Religion''). The bigger problem with Mathsci's evidence, however, is it's apparent lack of connection to this case. What exactly are you alleged regarding BLPs? Are you claiming that Residentanthropologist is sugar coating the BLPs of scholars that anti-cult activists are calling "cult apologists?" Is that the BLP issue?[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
-academic establishment were ‘highly critical’ of the prospective book" (from the book review by Richard Singleberg in the ''Journal of Contemporary Religion''). The bigger problem with Mathsci's evidence, however, is it's apparent lack of connection to this case. What exactly are you alleged regarding BLPs? Are you claiming that Residentanthropologist is sugar coating the BLPs of scholars that anti-cult activists are calling "cult apologists?" Is that the BLP issue?[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''