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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Evidence length

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Does the Cirt–Jayen case have a special evidence length restriction? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence states, "Generally, presentations should be kept under 1000 words and 100 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated". I have just been advised that my evidence is too long, at "894 words and 26 diffs". Cheers, --JN466 10:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've edited it down. I see that you have used the 500-word format in a number of recent cases. However, I would recommend that someone update the Guide to Arbitration. ;) --JN466 12:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. In general, the shorter the better, but there are obviously cases where having hard limits is not advisable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about a particular case should go on the talk pages of the case (In this case, the evidence talk page, to which I'll move this shortly). I was instructed that there would be no special limits for evidence length for this case. Go with the normal 500/50 limit, and note that the clerk bot has a built-in 10% tolerance before it gives you any warnings on your talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If 500/50 is the new standard limit, we should update Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence accordingly. --JN466 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. I'll fix that now, but the 500/50 limits have been in place for a while; that's what's listed at the top of case evidence pages. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Going back to what David was commenting are earlier, if there is an absolute need for you to submit more than 500 words of evidence or 50 diffs, then the bot can be configured to grant exceptions. However, we'd like to avoid doing this if at all possible, and the current format of your evidence looks fine as is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have liked to include evidence related to the editing of Jose Peralta, Hiram Monserrate, Kenneth Dickson, Joel Anderson, Sharron Angle and Corbin Fisher. As it is, I only provided a link to the relevant section of the RfC/U, as well as DGG's comments on the editing of these articles. This may well suffice; these issues have by now been highlighted multiple times at RfAR, and discussed on arbcom-l, so I suppose the arbitrators are aware of them. However, if the evidence does need to be on the case page in full to be considered, then I would invite other editors who have expressed concern about the editing of these articles to submit the related evidence in their own evidence section – or failing that, would ask for an extension of my limit. --JN466 17:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you have room for 13 more diffs or so; if you can highlight the 10 or so diffs that best illustrate the conduct you're concerned about, then that'll probably work well. On reviewing your evidence more closely, I'm not sure the word count is entirely accurate, though - I'm going to take a look and see if the bot is getting confused by something. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it is accurate - I was getting thrown off by the length of things, I suppose. In any event, the diffs you feel best highlight that information, as well as a link to the RFC/U you mentioned ought to be enough. If the arbitrators feel they need more, they'll ask for it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about scope

I have some questions about the scope of the evidence that is acceptable for this case. Obviously, evidence is acceptable if it concerns interactions between Cirt and Jayen; I understand that.

1. Am I correct that the case also includes conduct by either Cirt or Jayen, when that conduct does not consist of interactions between the two of them? (All of the evidence submitted as of now falls into this category.)
2. Is it appropriate to present evidence that would provide context, and thus a more fair understanding, of either party, when that evidence concerns conduct (such as hounding, for example) that is directed at either party, but which was performed by other users who are parties to the original arbitration request?

I would welcome answers to these questions from the Arbitrators. I am not asking for comments from editors who are not Arbitrators. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't all of you speak all at once. Anyway, these questions are no longer pressing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an arb, but it's still my job to help here. :-) I can poke ArbCom and get some comment here, as even if your questions aren't as relevant for you, they may be for someone else. My interpretation of the scope statement on the main case page would be that any conduct of Cirt and/or Jayen is relevant, due to that whole "including but not limited to" thing. So first answer probably yes. As for your second question, strictly interpreted, it's probably no. However, if it were me reviewing this case rather than simply clerking it, I would appreciate some (extremely brief) context as appropriate. A extremely rude comment, while unacceptable on this project, may be slightly more understandable if it were directed at someone who's been historically rude and persistent with little provocation. Hope that helps. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I came to those same conclusions myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably unhelpful observation

User:Cirt has not edited since July 21. It would be quite a drag if there is no response to this proceeding by Cirt. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised that issue with ArbCom, and they're considering what to do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISENGAGEing unrelated to the proceeding? Vacation? --Lexein (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As previously noted, Cirt has advised us that he has been travelling, but will present his position and evidence by August 15. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Tryptofish

Tryptofish, you're correct in observing that a large proportion of my edits to Wikipedia in July were related to the Cirt RfC/U, the RfAr, and this arbitration case. You stuck with the RfC/U from beginning to end, and will remember that it was quite an intense affair. In addition, I have a family, and July was the busiest month of the year at work for me. I attended to the RfC/U as best I could, and was not able to do a great deal more than that (apart from one DYK). If you look at my edits over the first half of the year, prior to the santorum incident, you will find that my editing priorities were elsewhere. --JN466 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like at least 607 out of your last 1200 edits (since June 2011) have been related to Cirt.[1] Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Will he's already stated that most of the time he's had available has gone into this situation over the last few weeks. What more do you want?Griswaldo (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This pattern seems to date back farther than a few weeks. At a minimum, it dates back to May, perhaps far longer.   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the link for my 5,500 edits since roughly the beginning of the year (January 4): [2] Clicking on "Frequently edited pages" gives you:

• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche[WP] (309)

• Lyndon LaRouche[WP] (184)

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cirt[WP] (153)

• Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism[WP] (142)

• User talk:Jayen466[WP] (119)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case[WP] (115)

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard[WP] (105)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt[WP] (90)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (89)

• User:Jayen466/Requests for comment/Cirt[WP] (80)

• User talk:Jimbo Wales[WP] (79)

• Red Barked Tree[WP] (78)

• Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement[WP] (71)

• Talk:Bukkake (sex act)[WP] (59)

• Ganges[WP] (59)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Timneu22[WP] (58)

• Anna Murray-Douglass[WP] (57)

• User:Jayen466[WP] (55)

• Wikipedia talk:Hardcore pornography images[WP] (53)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Philippine-related articles)[WP] (52) --JN466 04:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I count 2007 edits on that list, of which at least 659 were related to Cirt, more than any other topic.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what is more relevant here is that prior to the Santorum mess – and let's face it, Cirt created a huge mess there, before abandoning it in early June and leaving it to the community to sort it out – Cirt and I appear to have met at exactly two articles this year, Xenu (January) and Werner Erhard (February). Those meetings occurred because he chose to respond to talk page proposals of mine. And we actually came to an agreement at both articles. Two article contacts in five months hardly seem excessive for two editors with overlapping interests. There is more I could say about your maths, but it hardly seems worth it, given your attitude. --JN466 05:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Cirt didn't create a "huge mess" at talk:Santorum - as you point out he barely participated there. That article became a big dispute because it concerns a number of controversial issues about which the community has conflicting views. It looks like you and Cirt have edited 266 articles in common, not including deleted pages.[3] I don't think your interest in him started with the Santorum article.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, at this point in this talk thread, I'm not exactly sure what I should say in reply to you. I tried very hard to be even-handed, to the extent that the facts would support, in the way that I presented my evidence. From where I sit, well, please see also Javert. There are numerous instances where I have agreed with you, and where I have said positive things about you. Please take it or leave it for what it's worth. By continuing the issue, you actually tend to substantiate my impression. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

At Santorium - User:Cirt created a bloated attack article that had google bomb aspects also, that bloated attack creation was the disruption, if User:Cirt only made one edit to the article and that was it then that was the one that was disruptive - the creation of such content tore the community in half - (if you create policy compliant NPOV content, the community looks at it and goes, hmm. and goes off to edit something else) the issues the article expansion by User:Cirt created have since been addressed at multiple locations by the community - resulting in the content created by User:Cirt being deleted/reduced to 20/25 percent of what he created, also deleted were templates etc. User:Jayen466 may well have been recently focusing on resolving the issue with User:Cirt, that is totally normal - rfc user and arbitration and discussions at articles User:Cirt has edited that required correction and outside input. I hope this arbitration stops the editing issues and User:Jayen466 will be free of all this , free to create NPOV BLP quality content that he does all the time - no one can complain about User:Jayen466's contributions unlike User:Cirt's clear and repeated violations of core policy over years that is complained about at multiple locations/noticeboards by multiple uninvolved editors. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me just suggest, in a friendly and not-criticizing way, that Jayen asked me a question, and I tried to reply, and it probably won't accomplish much to have a tl;dr argument here, amongst persons other than Jayen or me, that would only rehash what was discussed at the RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about - the policy and editing violations over a period of years without end by User:Cirt and finally putting an end to those violations by User:Cirt is all that matters here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New Partridge Dictionary

I'm uninvolved in this case, although I did participate in the RfC/U. I'd like to express my strong disagreement with one element of the evidence presented: the claim that the addition of the "New Partridge Dictionary" to the Santorum (neologism) article gives the impression that the word is listed in the dictionary. It doesn't, that's gross overreach.

The 2006 edition of The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English cited santorum as an example of "deliberate coining".

If you aren't on a frenzy to show guilt, the inference that this is deliberate misrepresentation of the source is absolutely absurd and I hope the arbitrators disregard it. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Because of length restrictions, I was unable to include the source wording from Partridge in my evidence. The source wording occurs in the dictionary's introduction, in a section that explains how the authors selected words for inclusion:

As we drew from written sources, we were also mindful of the possibility of hoax or intentional coinings without widespread usage. An example of a hoax is the 15th November, 1992, article in the New York Times on the grunge youth movement in Seattle. The article included a sidebar on the 'Lexicon of Grunge'. The lexicon had an authentic ring, but turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a record company employee in Seattle. An example of deliberate coining is the word 'santorum', purported to mean 'a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex'. In point of fact, the term is the child of a one-man campaign by syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage to place the term in wide usage. From its appearance in print and especially on the Internet, one would assume, incorrectly, that the term has gained wide usage.

Actual usage of the word was a critical factor for notability, per WP:NEO (at the time, the article was called Santorum (neologism)), and the putative dictionary entry was a factor in article naming discussions. Cheers, --JN466 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I know the context. I followed Talk:Santorum and the RfC/U. I still think there's way too much being made of that. So it isn't listed in the dictionary, it's mentioned in the front. That's hardly deliberate misrepresentation: "cited" doesn't mean "listed". —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Many editors took the view that it was a poor and misleading summary of one of the most authoritative sources we had. Not a single editor advocated keeping that summary after the source text was posted on the talk page. Regards. --JN466 12:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It was entirely accurate: the dictionary not merely called santorum a "deliberate coining" but defined it. Maybe adding an awkward "While not accepting it as a word," would be good, but I should note that the article was chopped from something like 55k to 15k,^[4] citing verbosity, so I see no fault at all in Cirt neglecting to mention that, when the bottom line is, it's in the source. Wnt (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment 2 to Tryptofish

Tryptofish, this is the edit history of Campaign for "santorum" neologism in May, from the day Cirt started editing the article: [5]. As far as I can see,

• Cirt made 251 of the 320 edits shown, first editing the article at 21:21, 9 May 2011 (server time; equivalent to 14:21 Pacific time, 17:21 Eastern time).
• Stewart's The Daily Show was broadcast late night on Monday 9, introducing Santorum as one of the "presidential hopefuls" [6].
• Other editors made 8 edits to the article in the first days of May prior to that, and 69 edits through the remainder of the month.

Would it be possible to reflect those numbers in your evidence? Thank you. --JN466 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Daily Show episode was specifically about the "santorum" neologism. Wnt (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, Jayen, I'm not sure that you are really helping yourself with these questions. This is the same kind of thing that was discussed with respect to deleting a big part of what you originally wrote at WP:BOMB. From what you said here, one could conclude that Cirt, perhaps, watched Jon Stewart and thought something like hey, here's an interesting current event that is becoming notable enough to write something worthwhile on Wikipedia. You made a big deal about this issue at the RfC/U, and did not particularly convince those editors who did not already agree with you previously. You also presented other evidence—a lot of it—and some of it was similarly thin (I remember seeing you say recently that you regretted having brought up material about bacon, but I couldn't remember where to find the diff), while you also raised some very significant evidence (as I said previously, and you quoted me on it elsewhere, the BLP stuff concerns me quite a lot) that was taken seriously by those of us who had not previously interacted with Cirt. And please, I am not going to engage in extensive talk with you about this here. Let's let the Arbs form their opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, editors are permitted to submit what evidence they like. If you believe this evidence to be inaccurate or misleading, you are welcome to provide additional evidence of your own to contest it, as well as suggest findings of fact based on the evidence. Questioning editors on their evidence is not what this page is intended for, and also likely will not be useful to you in the long run. Please stop. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am really sorry; it was a misjudgement on my part. I did not mean to remonstrate with Tryptofish; I thought he was genuinely unaware of the above, and might want to reflect it in his evidence, which I agree is evenhanded. I've had friendly contact with Tryptofish during the RfC/U, and had not anticipated that he would be taken aback by these posts. Again, my misjudgment; it is difficult in this medium, and misjudgments do occur. I am really sorry I irked him; it was not my intention, and it will definitely not happen again. Regards. --JN466 20:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem! I agree that our interactions have been friendly, and I promise that I am not taken aback, irked, or in any way bent out of shape. More like there isn't much I could say, and I think you were undercutting your own position, as it will be seen by the Arbs and others looking on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, Hersfold, I've added a statement to my evidence. [7]. --JN466 02:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cla68

Cla68 has announced his intention to post evidence about users who are not parties to this case, apparently on an issue that has not been through any dispute resolution and which, by his own admission, may not violate any policies or guidelines. It appears from his comments that he wants to ArbCom to set policy and to sanction editors who aren't a party to this case. I think that's inappropriate. If he wants to make accusations about editors who are not part of this ArbCom case then he should request a new case. What's the point of having a list of parties if random people can be accused in a case?   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

He does not appear to be following the guidelines for this case decided by ArbCom. This edit summary looks like a deliberate pun. [8] Perhaps an arbitration clerk can move the irrelevant section to this page and caution Cla68. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(I may be dense, but I don't see the pun...?) Anyway, these questions go very much to why I asked what I did in #Questions about scope, above. It may simply be that the evidence to which Cla refers will be very appropriate to the other arbitration case in this pair. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming the purported pun was "will be back"... MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's official: I am dense. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the section, it seems clear that Cla68 wants to present this evidence with the intention of seeking sanctions for these other editors, and I've removed it as such in my capacity as case clerk. As discussed above, behavior of others is only really appropriate to submit as evidence in this case if it directly pertains to why Cirt and Jayen have acted the way they have (that is, it provides necessary context). The Manipulation of BLPs case has now been opened, so any evidence focusing primarily on the conduct of others should be posted there, or a new case opened if it's not particularly relevant to that either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing personal Hersfold, but I'm getting mixed messages here. Cla68 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 has now added a header "Prioryman" in the evidence after the posting by Hersfold on his user talk page clarifying the scope of the case. Could Cla68 please self-revert and seek further clarification from the clerks. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See the diff above. I would agree that Prioryman would seem to be out of scope but why would Cool Hand Luke make that comment to Cla68 when he did? I agree with others that Arbs have been handling all of this in a very confusing way. An argument could be made that Prioryman's involvement at the RfC was only to participate in the feud between Cirt and Jayen, to instigate opposition to Jayen. If so where is the appropriate venue to deal with that? The Arbs certainly have not handled it and certainly have not suggested an appropriate place to handle it.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a reply on Cla's talk page - in short, I'm pretty sure CHL misspoke and meant the related BLP case. I will be continuing to remove sections of evidence that do not appear to pertain to Cirt or Jayen; if it seems relevant, I will move those sections to the BLP case on the poster's behalf. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Prioryman's recent behavior is, in my opinion, more related to the Cirt dispute than it is to the larger issue of activist editing of BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68. Prioryman's comments relate directly to Cirt/Jayen466. Perhaps it would be helpful for Hersfold to ask CHL which case was intended? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Hersfold. It's my understanding that Prioryman's primary involvement in any Cirt matter was with the RFC, which seemed more within the scope of the C-JN case. I will ask Roger for a second opinion. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the Prioryman issue even need to be addressed by the ArbCom? I haven't followed all the twists and turns, but this seems like more of a case for SPI or ANI.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Will why would an SPI be needed if Prioryman has already admitted to being a returned user by name? It also turned out that the Arbs have been dealing with Prioryman all along, that is "handling" his return situation after he supposedly vanished. In fact this handling included instructing admins who blocked Prioryman as a sock that such things should not happen and then unblocking Prioryman themselves. All things related to Prioryman are quite clearly Arbcom matters. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, SPI is for investigations, not self-admitted socks. As I understood it, the problem with Prioryman was supposed to be that he was holding himself out as an impartial commentator on Cirt and/or skirting his existing restrictions. Cool Hand Luke 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, then add him as a party.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, then, I'll go ahead and readd Prioryman to my evidence section. Would any other behavioral issues regarding Cirt, such as allegations of misconduct by other editors at the Cirt RfC, also need to be presented here instead of in the BLP case? Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should wait until he's actually added as a party.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If other people are being added as parties maybe we should add the other people who have added evidence to this case. They appear to have had significant involvement in this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  07:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The only parties in this case are Cirt and Jayen. No other users should be added. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

{od} This case should probably be limited exclusively to Jayen and Cirt, simply because to do otherwise risks the same loss of focus that occurred during the original request. This is especially likely if it also examines editors who are only peripherally involved.

The other case, the provisionally and awkwardly named "Manipulation of BLPs", isn't a perfect fit for Prioryman either - though the feuding aspects are - but at least there it is less likely to muddy the waters. It was meant to look at feuding and activism in the Scientology, Lyndon Larouche and similar topic areas.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Prioryman- the bigger picture

As I build the evidence section on Prioryman over the next little while, it may be tempting to read and contemplate it simply as the exceptional story of an individual who apparently feels that it is ok to lie to try to win an argument and abuse "right to vanish" (with debatable help from ArbCom). This, however, would overlook the big picture, which is that Prioryman, in many regards, is but a small part of a bigger picture, and that is the abuse, bullying, and interference that has been heaped on editors who have tried to engage in dispute resolution with Cirt.

I admit that Prioryman is a little different in that he was a previous party, under a different account name, to a Scientology-related ArbCom case. Prioryman, however, shouldn't be the only one singled out when it comes to correcting, or attempting to correct, the behavior of those giving a hard time to editors attempting to use dispute resolution with Cirt. Prioryman has many companions in that regard, including at least one admin. It would be unfair to Prioryman for him to take the blame for all of it. I suggest, then, that it be allowed for evidence to be presented on other editors who have engaged in similar behavior, but the behavior must be related to the Cirt situation. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll email ArbCom about this. Frankly I still don't think that any evidence on him belongs here, but it seems I've been overruled on that point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that we voted and accepted the motion establishing a case "with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties", to examine "the conduct of each party", I do not see how Prioryman is especially involved, or how he can be named as a party. If there are issues with his behavior, they would have to be dealt with separately. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And by "dealt with", I assume you mean "do absolutely nothing about"...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Prioryman situation was brought up in several venues at this point, and it was never "dealt with" in any regard. Where do the arbitrators intend to deal with this situation exactly? I engaged Roger Davies on this matter extensively in more than one thread found here -- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 10. Should we re-open that discussion? I'm particularly disturbed by the fact that as I pointed out to Roger Prioryman's actions served only one purpose -- to make Cirt's critics look like an angry, witch-hunting lynch mob of Cirt-hating harassers trying to drive Cirt from the project. This appears to be the issue Cla68 wants to take up now again. So why not tell us where you will deal with it instead of only saying, "sorry not here."Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding Cla68's reluctance to address the Prioryman issues in the BLP/Feuding case. The editor was added back as a party by me, ten days ago and has been duly notified etc  Roger Davies ^talk 16:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

They way you have structured that case doesn't really make sense in this regard though. Cla, DC, I and others would like to know what you are planning to do about his sabotaging of the RfC under false pretenses, not about his editing of BLPs, which I am not even aware of him doing or doing problematically.Griswaldo (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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. Prioryman is a party to the BLP case but not this one. Plus, in this particular instance, a credible allegation was made weeks back this was a continuation of a Scientology-related dispute.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence extension

Just to let everyone know as we'd spoken with some parties in some places, but the date for the end of the evidence phase has been extended to 15 August; I imagine all the other phases will stay on track bumped back a week. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. In addition, as reminded by Off2riorob on my talkpage, we will also make sure that once Cirt has posted his position and evidence, other editors have a reasonable opportunity to respond to it before we move on to the next phase. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)