Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Macwhiz (talk | contribs)
2,807 edits
Line 822: Line 822:


:'''Comment by parties:'''
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::This seems like a good thing to try. Most US deliberative bodies, from courts to school boards, have a similar setup where most deliberations are held in public session, and only those parts that have an absolute need are performed in a limited, closed executive session. // [[User:Macwhiz|⌘macwhiz]] ([[User talk:Macwhiz|talk]]) 21:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::


:'''Comment by others:'''
:'''Comment by others:'''

Revision as of 21:11, 17 July 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
User:Δ   16 July 2011 {{{votes}}}
Alliance Peru Bolivia 1873   15 July 2011 {{{votes}}}
Cults Motions 5 July 2011 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


User:Δ

Initiated by MickMacNee (talk) at 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MickMacNee

I'm filing this request firstly for the reasons outlined in this post, and the further diffs it refers to, which showed Delta still in these last months has a persistent habit of making personal attacks and of general incivility which violate even the basic policies, let alone his long standing probation, and that the admin corps is largely failing to deal with this in the manner expected, and certainly failing to give the people he attacks any protection or assurance it won't be repeated. Secondly, I'm filing due to the fact that his response to the committee's recent Motion about him was to maintain his state of complete denial, and even after that finding, he continues to dismiss legitimate complaints with his editting which relate to his other restrictions to do with due care and attention. He feels so bold even after this formal reminder that he has no problem dismissing even an admin who was so warning him, as a harasser and stalker [1][2]. The future likelihood of such complaints reaching resolution in normal channels is thus still minimal, as the committee saw in the run up to the motion. His poor behaviour which so often rises to open contempt and defiance, his long standing personal prejudices, and his unshakeable belief in the virtue of his own conduct & standard of work, are all completely unchanged by this motion, as aptly demonstrated by his continuance of NFCC enforcement edits even after the part of the motion banning him from such had reached a majority. This is solely a behavioural issue which has barely anything to do with NFCC, and it can, and clearly will, be taken into future areas of interest given the topic ban, as it has been in the past.

If the committee dismisses this request, there is no doubt in my mind that you will be forced to make further motions within a year, which will simply be more firefighting without addressing root causes or enabling factors. There were several editors considering filing a full case prior to that motion, and I doubt they have been assuaged by it. I haven't sought any co-signers for this case, but I'm sure they could be found if the committee wants to see some and I'm given leave to solicit them, in the knowledge of what attacks doing so would invite without such leave. In terms of parties, I see this as a community wide dispute in which I would expect community level findings of fact & remedies on anyone except Delta, but for specimen charges I've named admins Slackr, Fastily & Future Perfect at Sunrise as parties as admins whose failures had a direct impact in the first incidents mentioned. I've also named admin Black Kite and user Hammersoft as parties, as their comments as regards Delta have recently crossed the line from mere civil dissent, to outright incivil bad faith hostility [3][4][5][6][7], which adds to the tendency for all discussions about Delta to now derail into drama without any resolution. I expect both those categories could grow if other incidents are examined in detail in a case. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft. You have recently classed me as one of the Delta "hate squad", you have put any and all of my posts on 'permanent ignore' until now, and before that you invoked your stupid 'Hammersoft's Law' more times than I can remember whenever I've tried to interact with you, even though plenty of people have told you it's a childish and counter-productive way to conduct yourself. You can consider me skipping to the venue of last resort as a direct consequence of that outlook tbh. And even if it wasn't me, I've seen how you generally receive any critical feedback (example) so my advice to anyone if they have a complaint with you would be to simply give you a single chance to respond, then when the inevitable comes, go straight to the involuntary venues. As for the rest: no, so what, no, no, yes, yes. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fut Purf, as per the linked diffs, your involvement relates first to your hatting of the AE request on Delta as 'wikihouding', thereby closing off yet another editor's recent attempt to resolve a dispute by having Delta held to the standards already set out in previous cases using the ordinary channels, meaning his behaviour was allowed to continue until it got so bad a further Motion was necessary, and secondly, the fact that on a report to ANI of a clear cut personal attack by Delta on me, your chosen way of responding to that was to simply repeat the attack. I'll repeat, you are a sample party, I don't by any means allege you are the worst offender, you are simply unfortunate in that your egregarious actions stood out to me when thinking about filing. The time has long since passed that the few admins who are actively not helping this dispute get resolved are identified, and if necessary any general findings and remedies that may arise are given some specific contexts using them, to assist admins in future as regards what is and is not expected from them in cases like this. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem. The scope as far as I'm concerned is Delta's ongoing behaviour and related issues of how its being handled by normal processes. NFCC is related only insofar as how its being used to divert from that, such as the continual false claims that the only people who criticise Delta are people who want to change/ignore that policy, or this idea that arbcom are out to destroy the Free Encyclopoedia, and all the other related histrionic and hateful bullshit that has somehow become normality from some people as a response when discussing this guy in normal channels. As such, we are well past WQA/RFC. Can you seriously imagine that sort of thing succeeding when you have opinions like that of Roux in here starting to creep into acceptance? I highlighted that in the filing as one of the precise admin failures necessitating this, so I'm surprised to see it emerge as an argument for not having it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily. Similarly with Future Perfect, your involvement is detailed in the filing and is made also as an egregarious sample party, namely due to your closure of the AN3 report as no action where Delta had restored a personal attack 4 times in rapid succession, apparently based on the consensus and your opinion that he was not making "innappropriate edits", both of which were questioned, and which nullifed an independently made block for the same, on mere procedural grounds, with the promised further discussion failing to materialise, leading us down the path of inaction which eventually led to the Motion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Slackr. You're involved on the same terms as Fastily & Future Perfect, I don't think I could have put that any clearer no? I am frankly surprised there are so many admins on this site who seem to not be able to follow wikilinks, and/or simply don't remember the admin actions they take or cannot recall them when they are called to account. Maybe you guys are just spreading yourselves too thinly to practice due care and attention? It's almost as surprising as the way the definition of 'simple disagreement' seems to have changed in here too. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@The concept of a merge - (beurocratic word limit strikes again - see diff for what was here.)
@BorisG. Delta was already under restrictions before the Motion, and just this past month or so someone tried AE as a venue for reporting violations of them - after several editors had made their case, and Delta had lobbed some personal attacks in response, the whole lot was simply shut down as 'wikihounding' by one of the admins named as a party here, who is claiming he has no idea why he's considered a party. It's pointless even pretending that this is a viable option any more, any kind of debatable violation will likely get the same treatment as well as more of the same diversion and evasion, and the only kind of obvious violation would be if he just started making NFCC edits again or made 50,000 edits in a minute or went and called Jimbo a total c-word. For such obvious violations, an AE case is hardly warranted, you would hope. Although even then, you start to wonder if anyone would do anything without an AE report being filed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted in light of some comments, that Delta's view post-motion anger period is completely unchanged. All of his opinions on the whos/whys/wherefores of his situation are proveably wrong, the claims aren't even remotely true even if you put a favourable pro-Delta slant on the actual facts, as the evidence that would come up in a case would easily show. Seriously, when is he ever going to be called to account for calling these fantasies a reality? I don't know what the committee's feelings are, but I for one do not want to see the NFCC ripped up, I do not spend more time on the drama boards than article space (for direct comparison to Delta, I have 10,000+ article edits, all unique and with no batch runs, all unaided by scripts, all with full individual edit summaries, all throughly checked and verified for the possiblity of errors, and with not a single one causing me to be sanctioned or topic banned by the committee), I have never stalked or harassed or bullied Delta except in his own ludicrous definition of such behaviours (which do not meet either the real world or even the Wiki-definition of such), and I do not criticize his edits or style just because he works in NFCC. He cannot, no, he will not, ever do anything to prove any of these claims. And tbh, why should he have to if the committee rejects this case? He's happy to simply set himself up as a perma-victim and repeat them into eternity, safe in the knowledge that there's no comeback likely from an indifferent administration, and that it's proveably helpful to throw this sort of shit into the fan whenever anyone tries to have his conduct examined and controlled in the way the committe has tried to remind admins that its supposed to. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statement by largely uninvolved roux

Decline this please. If for no other reason than the savage irony--or breathless lack of self-awareness--of MMN complaining about someone else's incivility and personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 16:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statement by uninvolved jtrainor

I urge the committee to accept this and thoroughly examine the issues. The community has become too polarized over the issue and any community discussion on the topic inevitably ends up spanning pages and pages and ending in almost complete deadlock. As I said previously this was going to come to Arbcom sooner or later anyways, so we might as well take care of it and settle things once and for all.

It is likely that if this case is declined, Betacommand/Delta's supporters will view it as 'vindication' and dealing with him will become even more difficult. Jtrainor (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, all evidence pertaining to Betacommand/Delta in the MMM case was struck as it was all contributed by Chester Merkel, who has since been banned as a sock. In any case he is not a party to that case. Jtrainor (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

You want to take Δ to arbitration because he continued to make NFCC edits until the motion was enacted? Please note that he didn't make any NFCC enforcement edits following enactment of the motion. Or maybe you want to take him to arbitration because he's not happy about his topic ban? What, you expect him to be HAPPY about it? Wow. You want to take me and a whole slew of other parties beyond Δ to arbitration without attempting any other form of dispute resolution with regards to them? You want to take me to arbitration because I find fault with ArbCom's decision? You want to take me to arbitration because of a prediction of the future I made? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. I would also ask that my name be removed from the case, as I do not consider myself an involved party, unless disagreeing with ArbCom is now a hanging offence. I certainly will not be participating in any way. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

  1. MMN has not presented any facts worthy of opening a full arbitration case, and his request is precipitous.
  2. I agree entirely with Roux's statement, the irony is palpable
  3. Hammersoft's analysis seems to me to be right on point. If a new equilibrium is to come about, Delta needs to be given some leeway to vent, since his primary area of work has been taken away from him. After some time has passed, if Delta has not calmed down andedits disruptively, this issue can be revisited.
  4. If the committee feels that it needs to deal with this in case form, Black Kite's suggestion is an excellent one, since MMN's case is still open, and Delta is a named party in that case
  5. However, I urge the committee to reject this request, and allow time for normal adminstrative action to deal with any possible infractions of the topic ban by Delta. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-statement by Fut.Perf.

I don't consider myself a party to this case, as long as no concrete statements about my alleged involvement have been brought forward, and I ask clerks to remove my name from the list in the absence of such. In the unlikely event that input from me should be needed here, I'm afraid I'll be away for most of the next two weeks. – Apart from that: concur with Hammersoft and Roux. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin Rich Farmbrough

Community resolution of this dispute, intimately tied together with the NFCC issues (which was bounced by an ARBCOM motion - in which at least one involved ARBCOM member participated, on the face of things) has not been exhausted. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Masem

It is very difficult to judge the severity of this request as numerous factors are conflicting: several recent AN/ANI threads, the recent ArbCom motion, and MMN's current own open case. MMN's summary is based on his own personal interactions and dissatisfaction with how others have perceived what MMN considers personal attacks, normally which would have been taken to other DRs first like WQA or RFC/U, so immediately sending this to ArbCom seems too premature. But again, numerous recent discussions make the actual matter at hand difficult to understand. Is it Delta's general behavior towards any of his edits? Is it the whole way NFCC editors behavior? Is it the treatment of NFCC by the body as a large? Is it the lack of anyone willing to step forward to block Delta based on such claims? I think a clear statement of the case extent needs to be stated before it can be resolved.

That said, if the case is strictly focused on Delta's behavior, the recent block by ArbCom would need to be reviewed within this case. The end result of the case may be the continuation of that motion, but I would propose that a possible (not necessarily likely) outcome is that the motion may have been inappropriate in light of the larger case. The motion should not be seen set in stone with a new case opened this close to the motion itself which seemed to pass without significant input from non-AC editors. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MMN: Based on the statement you're making that this is about Delta's behavior and does not involve anyone else outside of supporting Delta's behavior, this is absolutely the wrong step then to proceed: there's no secret that there's a bit of bod blood between you and Delta, and that's being addressed as your case. Even without that, specific addressing of Delta's behavior should be over at WQA or RFC/U than an immediate jump to ArbCom. This case should be rejected, or as noted, elements considered as part of MMN's case. --MASEM (t) 11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fastily

Like Fut.Perf. above, I do not consider myself an involved party. I ask that a clerk remove my name from this case accordingly. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

Facepalm Facepalm

Statement by Heim

To Fozzie, and anyone else interested in coupling this with the MMN case: Wouldn't that be likely to delay the decision in the MMN case? I really think that case needs a resolution sooner, not later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slakr

Ermm... I'm an "involved party?" Please enlighten me as to why, as I'm completely in the dark here. --slakr\ talk / 05:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and as per the other above statements, please also remove my name from the list if there's no good reason for me to be here. :P Thanks =) --slakr\ talk / 05:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cometcaster

I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. This is nothing but MickMacNee pursuing his vendetta against Delta. --cc 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

While it may be a bit too early to accept this case, I suggest that it is not declined outright and nor is it merged with the MMN case; perhaps it should be held as "pending" or similar. I am against a flat decline because I fear that it would feed delta's "confirmation bias", that a declined case would be taken as evidence that there is no issue with his post motion conduct and indeed he is at liberty to test the boundaries of what he may be permitted. This suggestion is based upon my observations of past restriction "gaming" (remember how compliance with NFCC allowed Betacommand to disregard community based restrictions, according to him? There is history here.) Keeping the door open to a full case may persuade delta to comply with the recent restrictions.
I further suggest that the case is not merged with the MMN case since it is not a case of delta vs. Mick, but of delta and his supporters disruption to the general community. If (and I think it will be when) a case is accepted I shall be providing evidence that the actions of User:Hammersoft and others (regardless of their undoubted good faith, etc.) has "enabled" delta to ignore legitimate and widespread concerns regarding his editing and conduct, to continue not to modify his behaviour, and thus were and are the cause of continued disruption to the project. There is some evidence of this habit of directing their energies toward the complainent and not the issues raised in some of the Statements above, for instance. Some editors who may be party to a delta orientated case may not be so - at least to the point of evidence and FoF's - in the MickMacNee case, and thus the cases should be held separately.
I think there should be a case, but perhaps in the near future rather than now - delta may usefully be given time to provide the rope or negate the need for one depending on their reactions. Perhaps there is a basis for a provision acceptance upon further examples of delta "not getting" the recent sanctions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved BorisG

I suggest declining this case. If Delta violates the restriction imposed by the recent motion, he can be easily sanctioned (blocked) at AE. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by largely uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

As a general observation - a large number of people on both sides of the recent dispute and motion were highly upset, and subsets of those on both sides were uncivil and confrontational beyond normal community standards. I think that everyone who wasn't being incensed was aware of the degree of hostility. I think that everyone who wasn't incensed was balancing intervening on the abuse with the repercussions that intervening would have had - civility warnings or blocks would undoubtedly have been perceived as partisan, even if handed out equally to both sides.

With that said - this is getting stale at this point, and if it starts to heat up it's not constructive to make a new case, in the sense of reducing community tensions etc.

If the problem has not gone away then a short term interaction ban on those seen to be continuing to attack each other seems the lightest touch solution to balance calming down the individual conflicts and not exacerbate the community writ large. A motion for that would seem to be the quickest most painless solution, if anything needs to be done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/0/2)

  • Comment: Hypothetically, I am on break right now; however, this situation appears to be worsening rather than settling after the recent motion. Awaiting further statements, but at this point I am inclined to accept and to look at the behaviour of all parties specific to the NFCC issue. Risker (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept - I don't think the MMN case will be able to address all of the issues raised here, which involve several other editors besides Delta/Betacommand. Risker (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Enormous WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues here. Cool Hand Luke 16:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, try to fold it in to MMN. I will support reopening it if the problem persists after the closing of that case. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Risker, I'm trying to be inactive right now.. but really guys? REALLY? Not 48 hours after we posted a motion in this area, and now a request for a full case? Can't we all just get along? I know one of the core issues (MMN and Delta) was being looked at in the MMN case, can't it be handled there? SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chester's evidence might have been struck, but speaking as one of the case drafters (even if the real world has kept me out), A) That shouldn't stop anyone from posting evidence in that area and B) I know in the preliminary discussions I had with Kirill before the real world hit me (hard), that it was one of the areas we were looking at. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Formally Declining a seperate case. This should be handled as part of the MMN case. (and noting I'll be inactive if a case is opened until I say otherwise) SirFozzie (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting on this one. I would really rather this settle itself, but if the situation continues to persist I don't see what other options there are. The community has failed spectacularly in resolving this thus far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept While David Fuchs' sentiments are well placed, I am not optimistic that such a community-based solution is forthcoming. If we open the case and it proves to be unnecessary, it can be closed by motion. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per SirFozzie. At the moment, we still have the MickMacNee case open, where I think we can review the issues raised here. However, after the MickMacNee case is closed, and if the recently enacted topic ban for Δ is perceived to be unsatisfactory, then it would make sense to open a new case. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Phil and SirFozzie. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Peru Bolivia 1873

Initiated by Keysanger (what?) at 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The issue defensive/ofensive has been resolved, as regards content, in Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue.

I requested in the Talk Page diff to change the wording of the lede. MarshalN20 answer to my request included the same wording: The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.

Statement by Keysanger

The issue of the defensive/offensive character of the 1873 Alliance of Peru and Bolivia was resolved in the Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue.. The terms of the agreement are:

  • The treaty was officially titled defensive.
  • The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
  • Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.

But MarshalN20 insists to push his view of the issue. Here MarshalN20 changes a "Was the the Bolivian / Pervuian treaty of alliance of 1873 was for mutual defense or instead a plan for offensive meansures against Chile?" for a "in which the forces of Chile fought against a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru.". Further down he insists "Nonetheless, in 1873 Bolivia and Peru had signed a secret defensive alliance, which some historians consider offensive and aimed at Chile, which was to bind their military forces together in the extreme case their respective territories were invaded by another nation." (later the second sentence disappered and only the first one was keept.

English is not my first language, but I think that every one can read there that the alliance was actually defensive.

I don't want to initiate another mediation about the defensive-offensive issue because it is already done. I think it is time to clear whether MarshalN20 is ready and able to accept the rules of Wikipedia. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarshalN20

This matter should be discussed in the NPOV noticeboard. I suggested this:

The diff Keysanger uses has very little to do with the current state of the introductory section. The current introductory section comes from a peer-review and copy-edit from different users. Sentences didn't just "disappear", they were re-written by honest contributors probably from the Guild of Copy Editors.

I believe there is no problem with the current introduction. Therefore, I really do not understand what this user is trying to get out from this situation. Keysanger seems to think that it's a matter of "Peru/Bolivia v Chile", when the introduction is simply a summary of the body of the article (which goes into more detail). Regardless of any POV in the matter, historical information within the article shows that the alliance between Peru and Bolivia was defensive. Even Keysanger writes: "every one can read there that the alliance was actually defensive."

This whole matter is an exaggeration created by Keysanger. Nothing "extreme" or "nationalistic" is written in the introductory section (which is what Keysanger writes as the title of the discussion: [13]). The simple solution to this problem is simply getting Keysanger to understand the concept of MOS:LEAD. Thank you.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I'll continue with the NPOV noticeboard and see if a solution can be found from it. Thank you for your suggestions.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

Cults

Initiated by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) at 06:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by ResidentAnthropologist

Cirt is longstanding editor in the Wikimedia community with 12 FA, 87 GA, and 152 Dyks, an Administrator on multiple projects, OTRS volunteer, and check user on Wikinews. Jayen466 is a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community who has been involved with a number of BLP clean up initiatives and assisted in a dozen FAs, and a number of GA and DYKs. The situation currently has been brewing for years between various players at various times. I am currently listing the most relevant to the situation as it is now.

As We all know the Santorum mess blew up in the past month. After a failed arbitration request, Jayen466 and Cla68 filed a WP:RFC/U on User:Cirt to address the perception by many editors that he may be engaging in Political activism.

The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions and several editors have agreed at the end of the first week that it is going nowhere. We have generated over 500 kb of hostile debate filled with bad faith and accusations. There are currently two camps at the present that cause arbitration to be needed. Those who feel Cirt actions are contrary to community expectations and those who feel its a witch hunt initiated by pro-cult editors on Cirt. These questions have floated over the entire topic area of "groups alleged to be cults" and related topics.

  1. Has Cirt engaged in political activism against multiple individuals and groups to the detriment a NPOV encyclopedia? RFC/U AE thread 1, again
  2. Has Jayen466 engaged in bad faith editing and harassment against Cirt? See ANI thread AE thread 1, again
  3. Have either Will Beback, SlimVirgin, or Cla68 engaged in Bad Faith editing in Lyndon Larrouch topic area? Will, SlimVirgin accused by Cla68 Cla68 accused by Will Beback
  4. Did Jayen466, Scott Macdonald, Delicious carbuncle, Cla68 lead a campaign of bad faith editing through Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology? (Struck Cla68 as involvement was minimal) DC disputeANI thread on Involving Scott AE thread
  5. Have groups of Pro-NRM and pro-Cult editors been acting in bad faith to seek action on Cirt, Will Beback and Slim Virgin?Allegations of Pro-Osho POV Allegations of pro-NRM bias by RFC participantsCla68 accused by Will Beback
  6. How does self declared past former connections to such groups interact with WP:COI?
  7. How does self declared past former connections to such groups interact with WP:COI? RFC
  8. Are accusations COI on editors violations of WP:NPA specially the bullet including ad-homiem attacks?
  9. Do the accused editors in fact have such a COI that invalidates their raised concerns?
  10. Have a editors who disagree with Cirt and Will Beback been bullies or the bullied?
  11. How does communication and membership with the Wikipedia Review interact with Community expectations?

This recent flare up with the RFC/U has shown my long held thought that a number of editors have in fact argued the above questions in multiple forums and topic areas for years in some cases. These editors represent issues and personal feuds that have been simmering for years. Multiple Arbcom cases have occurred involving many of the above editors and the animosity surrounding those cases persists. I urge arbcom to take action and clarify these issues once and for looking at all editors involved.

@MathSci

Complicated disputes are what arbcom has been founded for. The Community for several years has been unable to decide on any of these issues. Diffs will be provided but I have just spent an hour and 1/2 doing this when I meant to be in bed two hours ago. The parties I have listed will no doubt agree that these accusations have been flung and be able to provide diff between now and tomorrow when I am awake. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 08:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@John Vanderberg, I considered scoping this to Jayen466-Cirt conflict. The reality is that would really leave out alot of problematic material that in my opinion is equally problematic. The Santorum issue was really the last straw for some folks but all other issues are in the cult topic area. That I believe is the crux of it all and many would agree. Cirt's leaving the topic area is irrelevant anyway because we need a finding to decide that. Otherwise We will spend years of sniping over whether he really did do it or not. If We leave the Santorum out of it, I am fine with that as it was only the last straw in the long running dispute. However pretending that is was not a factor in all this only further complicates the issue rather than clarifying it. As I consider the the anti-Scientology stuff just as much activism as the Santorum thing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 08:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will, I am being bold here and lumping them together but its there because a group of the same editors in different topic areas keep getting together and duking it out. It needs to end as it is harmful to both the community and the encyclopedia. Will has been ranting about Cla68 conversations with the banned Herschelkrustofsky for months. Pretending that has not caused problems in other discussions is silly. I will provide diffs in the morning of all this. I think I have clearly laid out a number of accusations that have been tossed by both side in the dispute. I dont stand behind allof them other than they have been said. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 09:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will,(2) On the clarification of who I drew up as parties here there were to main groups. (1) Those who felt their were sincere problems with Cirt's editing with minimal issues on the those who filed the RFC/U. (2) those who felt the RFC/U was witch hunt on Cirt with no merit by biased editors. There were a lot people in between on the issue who as I left out but I felt editors in those two extreme ends of the camp were the problem. It may be a reasonable move to reduce the list of involved editors. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbcom I really hate to draw the net so wide but the reality is there are a number of ongoing feuds that continue to disrupt the process of Encyclopedic content creation. I think if we limit it to the ten points I have outlined in the case would be manageable. Narrowing the scope would only mean those issues would continue to simmer just end up back here in the end. We can either nip these feuds in one big case and get to the bottom of these accusations that keep manifesting in topic area after topic area. Or sit and do it all case by case and pretend that the interrelated editors and conflicts have no relevance. We need to look at things in the big picture of how these editors interact with each. What has gotten us nowhere the little snapshot of each conflict that We have been doing for years now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Will (3) Would you correct the misspelling of my name? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Clerks I have noticed Will Beback has chosen to refer to me as "ResidentApologist" a reference to Cult apologist. I consider such name calling unproductive. I thought this was honest but weird and accidental misspelling. Given it has occurred in two separate statements edit 1 edit 2 would some one please ask him to correct it? I doubt my posting on his user talk page would be productive. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB, Collect's suggestion seems the best route on dividing the cases. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


@Arbcom, Having review my initial statement my hope to knock all these issues off was rather idealistic and having thought through it some more I would suggest narrower scope. I still think however that those issues will have to be resolved at some point in the future but perhaps not this case. I would suggest the following scope

  1. Cirt alleged political activism the most relevant being the longstanding concerns in Scientology and Santorum areas.
  2. Scrutiny of a number of editors involved in Cult/New Rm topic area where longstanding factions have contributed to derailment of the RFC/U.

Point 1 requires resolution either way, a motion to prevent further occurrences may be advisable. Though a motion may be advisable it would also leave open for future disputes of whether Cirt "really did engage in it." Ideally We dont want to leave such questions open for people to stir things up.

Point 2 is a very real problem. I think Will Beback raised a very troubling issue on the RFC/U talk page about "Pro-nrm/cult" editors all showing up to "bash" Cirt. From my perspective I see all the same editors show up many Administrative Notice Board threads, AE threads, and RfARB threads that involve editors from the topic area. Will's multiple accusations against editors I find very troubling as it represents long standing problem in the whole topic area. The RFC/U happened to get all the editors involved the Cult/NRM topic area in one place and they predictably duked it out. (with notable exceptions of User:John Carter, User:NestleNW911 and User:CoffeePusher) The sheer number of accusations thrown there is both conveniently collected and representative of the issues that has plagued the topic area for years.

Statement by totally uninvolved Mathsci

Far too diffuse and nebulous for an ArbCom case with too many parties, too many confused issues and no diffs of misconduct. That is what life is like; it cannot possibly be sorted out by mere mortals. Personal or collective appeals to a deity (or deities) could possibly help, but not ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ RA: normally ArbCom cases centre on a fairly precise group of individuals, issues or set of articles where problems have arisen with conduct. Unless this is made precise, ArbCom is more likely to rule on possible misconduct during the actual case, which would probably be unmanageable by either clerks or arbitrators if it had too wide a scope (judging from the RfC/U). Perhaps, after some sleep, RA can slightly rejig his request by reformulating it with a narrower and more precise scope. There is no rush. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

This ArbCom request by Resident Anthropologist was unexpected, but I can understand why he is filing it. I don't think Cirt is the problem here. Cirt has acknowledged the RfC, and I think should be allowed some time to show that the concerns have been taken on board. Some of the responses by other editors in the RfC and its talk page, however, have been inappropriate and hurtful. Me, Jayen, and/or several other editors have been compared to the Nazis, been called liars (by Raul654), and accused (by Will Beback) of filing the RfC because of our presumed participation in a religious organization. Again, it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way. Cla68 (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid Jechochman's premature closure of the RfC and warned him on his talk page. RfC's normally run for 30 days. He openly stated in his closure that he was closing the RfC because he disagreed with it. So, I placed his comments in the RfC itself as a "view". I ask any admins watching this to help protect the RfC and allow it to run for its full time period and block any editors who try to close it because they disagree with it. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Collect's suggestion to have two separate cases, one about BLP and the other for the cult/political movement editing issue. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other suggestion in response to Sir Fozzie's questions...if a couple of cases are opened, I recommend that the arbitrators take an inductive approach. Look at all the little pieces and decide who and which policies are to blame for the current conflicts. If an editor alleges, with evidence, for example, that I'm a liar and a jackass to boot, please do your best to investigate this and answer yes or no to the question. Then do the same thing for all the other allegations. I only say this because the leaked emails make it look like the arbitrators sometimes use deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. I think inductive rather than a deductive approach will produce better decisions. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing...today I happened across a quote from Tom Wolfe that I thought was appropriate, "A cult is a religion with no political power." (Source: Wordsmith, Word of the Day for 7 July 2011). Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment, I also agree that the RfC should remain open until a case formally opens. Since me and Griswaldo undid Jehochman's misguided attempt to close the RfC, more important evidence was discovered and added, at least three additional editors were able to participate, and several editors were able add more thoughts and opinions [14].
I notice that Will Beback has asked that LaRouche not be included if a case is opened, but he did not promise to start following WP's policies and guidelines with regard to that topic. The leaked ArbCom emails show that the Committee has been aware for some time of the POV and editor conduct issues associated with the LaRouche topic area. It's time for that to get an open community hearing and some judgement. Also, the evidence will show that Will Beback has displayed serious editor behavior issues in several cult topics in addition to LaRouche, especially with regards to treatment of BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the arbitrators, I think the scope of the case should include all cult, non-religious spiritual or meditation movements, and "cult-like" political movements (the LaRouche movement would be included in that latter), because I believe the evidence will show POV or tendentious editing by many of the same editors in most, if not all those categories. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Stephan Schulz

I explicitly endorse "The RFC was a clusterfuck of really epic proportions". No opinion on the rest of the case is implied.

RFAR is not a petition.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Sadads (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh joy... Another three ring circus is coming to town. The MMN circus was begining to get a bit tiresome. {{/sarcasam}} Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

ResidentAnthropologist seems to be asserting that I'm a bully and have edited in bad faith. ResidentAnthropologist has not engaged in any dispute resolution regarding these accusations, nor does he offer evidence that there is any problem with my editing.

There are ongoing problems with NRM/cult topics, due partly to the active involvement of strongly partisan editors. But the individual topics are so different, and collectively the whole topic involves so many editors, that I don't see how a case could address them all together without going out of control.

Cla68 is correct that I assert that some of the editors who have participated in the current RFC/U about Cirt have a long history of disagreement with him over new religious movements, a history which they do not want to discuss. However the RfC/U was only filed recently and is still quite active.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to guess how ResidentAnthropologist chose this list of people to include as parties. It appears to be nearly identical to the list of people who've commented on the talk page of the Cirt RFC/U.[15]   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misspelling ResidentAnthropologist's username, it was just a mistake. FWIW, I've never called him or anyone else an "apologist".
I don't understand Collects' proposal for two cases. The BLP case seems like it might include 85% of Wikipedia users. It would be unprecedented to have two simultaneous cases with the same person as the central party. It's not clear which specific issues and articles have problems that Collect or ResidentAnthropologist feel need resolved.   Will Beback  talk  06:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Sue Gardner has recently commented favorably on the vigilance with which Wikipedia editors patrol self-serving edits and conflicts of interest. Despite her words, the boundaries of allowable conflicts of interest, the manner in which editors with conflicts of interest are supposed to edit, and the avenues for enforcement of violations are all insufficiently defined in the existing guidelines. However it is not the job of the ArbCom to fix those guidelines. In this case, I am not aware of anyone commenting on "how they vote" or "whether they wear briefs or boxers". There has been recent discussion about how far the COI guideline applies to people who volunteer or contribute to a political campaign. Individual ArbCom members are encouraged to contribute the debates on these issues, but the committee as a whole should not be seeking to rewrite the guideline. This much is clear: if someone is writing about a commercial enterprise then it's appropriate to inquire if they have any financial relationship, and if someone is writing about an individual then it's appropriate to ask if they are acquainted. Such inquiries are not "outing". If editors don't wish to reveal their connections they should not edit the articles where they have a conflict of interest.

Also, Roger Davies refers to issues about SOCK, yet no one here has mentioned anything about violations of that policy here. It's not at all clear what kind of case ArbCom members are voting to accept.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LaRouche articles: Cla68 requested an RFAR in April on this topic which was denied by the committee.[16] Since then there have been only low-level disputes and no significant dispute resolution. It is now a quiet and reasonably peaceable topic. Bringing it into this already complicated case would stir the pot and promote conflict rather than settle any pending problems.   Will Beback  talk  08:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 wrote: I notice that Will Beback has asked that LaRouche not be included if a case is opened, but he did not promise to start following WP's policies and guidelines with regard to that topic.
I have also not promised to stop beating my wife. This innuendo is one of many that Cla68 has made against me, all without any proof. He recently accused me of revert warring, but never offered evidence of that either despite repeated requests.[17] I have not violated any policies or guidelines on any articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: A lot of the material Jayen is adding to the CIRT RFC/U appears to be from a year ago or more. Is this case intended to investigate old disputes or to resolve current ones? When the scope is determined I hope that the time period of concern is identified.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: the core issue here seems to the conflict between Jayen466 and Cirt, involving biographies of living people, new religious movements, and the interactions of these two editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ErrantX

@John; in case it is not clear (and note I do not necessarily endorse this view) Cirt changing topics is the matter of concern, because the same issues just surface again in a few months (whether that is his fault or that of others, no comment). In addition the charge of political activism, if in any way true relating to any of these editors, is by far the most serious and wiki-damaging charge. If you examine anything, it should be this.

It will be a long, complex case with lots of evidence I expect. So what. That is the job, I'm afraid, you guys were elected for :) --Errant (chat!) 09:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the RFC/U and some of the related past DR methods I have some further comments:
  • Absolutely it is a cluster fuck
  • I have sympathy for the view that Cirt is having mud slung at him in the hope that it sticks. The cookery sourcing issue is an example of such things that are idiotic to bring up as a serious issue; it's an error of language I suspect we have all fallen for at some point. With that said there are specific serious concerns brought up in relation to certain activities, issues in style and sourcing that need addressing by Cirt (preferably as an individual).
There are three or four issue areas r.e. Cirt the committee needs to examine:
  • It was argued that writing in a promotional tone is an issue we all suffer from occasionally, I agree. But Cirt looks to have used this tone extensively in a specific sub-set of articles and does not appear to agree it is problem. The evidence regarding the writing of articles on request is problematic because the content written was fairly promotional; the committee could examine whether this is just conflation of two issues (i.e. Cirt's editing style and the request for the article) or whether there was an intent to portray the company well.
  • Cirt certainly does react aggressively to defend his content (by which I do not mean he writes angrily, but he uses the systems quickly and effectively to try and stamp on dissent). There may be something to examine here behaviour wise (I have not formed an opinion on whether the system has been abused or not).
  • There is certainly legitimate concern relating to the misrepresentation of sources, enough to suggest a review of some of Cirt's work to re-assure as to whether this is a prevalent problem. The issues raised are examples of using content that does not support a position and spinning it to support that position (the clear case being the Santorum article lead addition). This could be related to my previous point.
  • The political agenda one, though, is the most seriously problematic. Looked at in a certain way Cirt's work could be construed as designed to promote a certain cause or aim, subtly, through the use of WP's systems. In another light it could be completely innocent coincidence. And in the middle there could be a bit of both. I think it is well within the committees purview to establish who is accurately portraying this string of events and what the real underlying explanation is - if nothing else to resolve the issue.
All in all there is definitely something to examine here; Cirt is a prolific writer whose work seems to fall into various contentious and difficult areas. That there is conflict is not unsurprising and in many cases I would look at this and think "meh". But I think enough evidence of potential underlying problems has been presented to merit the committee examining this - if the problems are accurate they need resolving, and if they are untrue then Cirt needs to be publicly cleared of the mud. --Errant (chat!) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Jayen466

There is evidence of political activism by Cirt that is directly related to Scientology. It concerns agitating against politicians who had taken a stance broadly in favour of Scientology:

  1. Riverside County supervisor Jeff Stone, whom Anonymous members have described as in bed with Scientology for supporting an ordinance against Anonymous picketing at Scientology's headquarters:
    When Stone sought the Republican party nomination for the California State Senate, Cirt wrote what can properly be described as political advertisements for his opponents, Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson, and gave them main page exposure before the election.
  2. Hiram Monserrate, who had supported Scientology's New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project:
    When Monserrate sought to regain his New York State Senate seat, Cirt wrote a political advertisement on his opponent, Jose Peralta, and placed it on the Wikipedia main page three days before the election (as well as on Wikiquote's main page for the week before the election). He also edited Monserrate's article to make it more unfavourable.
  3. Sharron Angle:
    Over three-quarters of her biography consisted of Scientology allegations last year: [18][19]. Cirt began editing the article on 18 April, 3 days after Angle won endorsements for the Nevada Senate elections. Note [20].

This type of editing is a major point raised in the RfC/U, and is probably not unique to these articles. If the case is taken, it should be in scope. That's in addition to BLP violations like this, or the conduct described here. --JN466 10:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I would have been happy to "bury the hatchet", as you put it, had there been an honest acknowledgement from Cirt that editing like that outlined in the above BLPs is indefensible, and damaging to this project. Instead, Cirt very deftly and deliberately sidestepped the RfC, just as he sidestepped the 2007 COFS case, sidestepped the RfAr a couple of weeks back, and is sidestepping this one. And I am getting tired of pointing to policy violations that appeared in our mainspace, and receiving vague ad-hominems based on my supposed religious affiliation in return. My last major edit to the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) article was this. You be the judge if it sounds more or less promotional about its subject than Jose Peralta and Joel Anderson. --JN466 17:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Cirt expands a 250-word biography of a politician into a 1500-word coatrack by adding 1,250 words on Scientology. IPs who tried to restore the short, factual, article, or add unsourced – or sourced – material to balance the article were reverted and warned for vandalism. And you are saying that Cirt's contributions are holy and wonderful, because they are sourced, and the onus is on other editors to add 125,000 words on other matters than Scientology to balance the article? Are you out of your mind? [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. [46] --JN466 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: God forbid, I was not saying that the RfC/U should remain open if an arbitration case opens, only that it should remain open until a case opens. That's per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing#Closing_due_to_other_dispute_resolution—a case needs to have been accepted and opened before the RfC/U should be closed. --JN466 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: Here is another suggestion re scope: make this a case about Cirt's editing, and examine if there are valid and material concerns in the RfC/U and previous AE threads. If you find that there are, that should vindicate the RfC/U. If you find that Cirt's editing has been above board throughout, and there is no merit in the concerns raised, then we can look at taking action against those who brought the RfC/U – Cla68 and me – and those who endorsed it – User:ResidentAnthropologist, User:Collect, User:SlimVirgin, User:Griswaldo, User:Anthonyhcole, User:B, User:Wikid77, plus perhaps User:DGG, whose outside view was the most critical of Cirt. User:Will Beback's 11th-hour intervention, which started with this post on the RfC/U talk page and prompted RA to file this very broadly scoped request, really muddied the waters rather than adding clarity. I don't think an omnibus case combining such diverse topics as LaRouche and Scientology is going to help. LaRouche was turned down at RfAr fairly recently. A case on Cirt, however, should be fairly compact and enable you to assess both the need for further dispute resolution steps, and address some fundamental questions about BLP editing. --JN466 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will, the problem is that there seem to be ongoing patterns here, such as starting work on political candidates' biographies soon after their intention to run for office becomes public, or characterising editors' good-faith contributions as disruptive vandalism (here). --JN466 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: I agree 100% with DGG. Further to BorisG, if you don't want the drama of a case, the problems with Cirt's editing should by now be clear and apparent enough to deal with by motion. --JN466 20:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen: We need a case or motion that addresses what appears to many editors here to be Cirt's promotional editing, especially in support or opposition to candidates' political campaigns. This includes the 2010 New York State Senate election (Jose Peralta and Hiram Monserrate), the 2010 Republican primary for the California State Senate (Kenneth Dickson and Joel Anderson), the 2010 Nevada Senate elections (Sharron Angle), and the 2011 Santorum presidency campaign (Santorum (neologism). The evidence of time-synchronised, non-neutral editing given in the RfC/U is very clear and straightforward here (please review it, if you have not done so already).

We really need you to make a statement that such focused editing by an admin, plainly apt to manipulate the democratic process through Wikimedia projects' visibility, is a breach of the community's trust. All of these elections, with the exception of Santorum, were related to Scientology. If you deal with that, by placing an appropriately scoped sanction and topic ban on Cirt, covering Scientology (widely construed, including Werner Erhard) and politicians' biographies (widely construed), the basis for the repeated disruption described here, here and here, and the associated BLP problems, will simply evaporate. Cirt can continue his quality contributions in other fields that are less controversial, less affected by his POV, and less likely to cause renewed disruption. --JN466 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@I'd be more than willing to respect a mutual interaction ban with Cirt provided there are enforceable sanctions in place that ensure that problems such as this will not reoccur. If it is left to Cirt to manage himself and his POV in these areas, reoccurrence of these problems is certain. That is something Cirt's conflicts over the past five years with such diverse editors as User:Scott MacDonald, User:Coren, User:SlimVirgin, User:Lar, User:Delicious carbuncle, User:Bishonen [47], User:Griswaldo, User:THF, User:Njsustain, User:PelleSmith and others should have taught us. It is time for it to stop. --JN466 19:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved (?) Collect

I am involved here solely because I made a coment at the RFC/U. My position there, and here, is that

The RFAR recently made did not, in my opinion, stress the BLP issues strongly enough at all, and I suggest that this RFC/U strongly state to everyone that neither puffing a person one likes (political or otherwise) nor making sure material which properly falls under BLP in my opinion (scatological "neologisms" based on a person's name, for example) is proper as far as the editors here are concerned. Further, that Cirt appears to have engaged in both behaviours to an exceeding great extent, and is properly admonished by the community for such behaviour. Further, that those participating here wish all administrators to be strongly aware that being a "BLP zealot" as some would unkindly view those with such views on all BLPs, is, in our opinion, proper on Wikipedia entirely. Lastly, that while we all sympathize with editors who can not devote much time to answering such charges, we are cognizant of the number of edits made by such an editor. IOW, if one can make fifty edits a day, one is able to participate here. Cheers.

I suggest that if this case is accepted, that the acts and edits of the actual "involved parties" regarding BLPs will be examined closely and fairly. Collect (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone - if everyone who edits BLPs is expected to recuse, then that is obviously a silly position to hold <g>.

I would, again, suggest that ArbCom make strong statements about BLPs,

  1. that editors should neither extol nor denigrate any person through their edits on biographies, nor seek in any way to do so.
  2. Further, that since "opinions" made by others in "reliable sources" about the article subjects have been so substantially misused, that ArbCom should strongly state that BLPs are ill-suited for "opinions" about the person who is the subject of the biography, and that prudence requires that claims made about any living person should be restricted to facts and not opinions by individuals or groups.

I realize this is a quite controversial position to take, but I would ask that the members of the committee seriously discuss it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB: I'd suggest two separate cases in that case: 1. In re: WP:BLP (as noted above) and 2: In re: Editing about Cults and other groups, religious, political and otherwise. Collect (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WBB The statement I gave here was exactly the one I gave at the RFC/U. I suggest that since it attracted apprecialble support that the other editors understood what it said. Would yo like a list of BLPs I have edited? Or what? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen: A BLP case would only need to make extemely strong statements about any possible perception of bias in sources, whether to puff or to denigrate the subject of the BLP, and requiring stronger sourcing that YouTube etc. for matters of opinion about anyone (actually, perhaps all opinions should be avoided in BLPs, but that would be up to ArbCom at that point.) On an egoistical note, I think adoption of the basis of WP:PIECE would be sage <g>. The Cult case would address how "cults", religious, political or otherwise, or perceived "cults" should be treated in articles, again likely requiring that "opinions" about such should be avoided as well. IMHO, some of the bggest Wikipedia contretemps are due to opinions used in articles, and categorization of people or groups relying on such opinions rather than on simple statements of fact. Such a position would eliminate more than half the arbitration cases brought. In neither case would ArbCom have to dispose of concerns about a single editor (Cirt) as long as the principles were clearly laid out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@CMLITC (apologies for the acronym usage): No one has questioned the BLP issue as being of primary importance. A clear majority of those opining at the RFC/U agree on BLPs being a real and substantive issue. The "cult" issue goes to the rationale asserted for the BLP problems, and is thus subsidiary thereto. A strong resolution about the BLP issues would likely alleviate the "cult" sub-problem. And be a far simpler case to decide <g>. Collect (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Actual examinations of opinions does not show that 2/3 of those opining found absolutely nothing to note - that is an opinion belied by reading the opinions <g>. Collect (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

I participated in the recent discussion around the Santorum (neologism) RfC, and the ongoing Cirt RfCU. I have nothing to say about cult editing but there definitely seems to be two opposing camps here. Good luck with that. As for Cirt, the desired outcome of his RfCU was basically that he abide by specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines. His response was along the lines of, I haven't breached those policies, but it might have looked like it to others, and he reiterated his intention to stay away from BLPs that have political overtones. He has previously undertaken to avoid other areas.

My reading of the RfCU is that he does edit tendentiously, does misrepresent sources to push a view, and does produce embarrassing political advertisements in support of the Anonymous agenda, and blatant commercial advertisements. He doesn't see this, or doesn't see anything wrong with it. Is JN harassing Cirt, or just pointing out bad behaviour when he sees it? He's been accused relentlessly of the former, so it would be good to have an opinion from you. I've seen some of the history and in each case it was JN justifiably, in my opinion, raising questions about inappropriate behaviour. But if you take this on, hopefully you'll examine a bigger sample than I've seen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker. Re: What to focus on? Frankly I think the biggest problem is with administrator oversight of Cirt's behaviour. Cirt is a charming guy. He has worked on articles about unpopular cults and has had to deal with some exceedingly relentless POV pushing zealots, which has won him some bitter enemies and a lot of friends. The admin corps and others now lazily assume any criticism of him is necessarily meritless. Witness Jehochman's closing statement for the Cirt RfCU. I doubt he even read the RfCU page, let alone the discussion behind it. JN and others have raised serious concerns about Cirt's behaviour but, because some have been in dispute with him on new age religion pages, it's assumed they're just zealots out to get Cirt, their motives are impugned and their complaints are dismissed. Over and over again. Cirt is engaged in serious political activism here, and the admin corps is letting it happen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie. The core issue here is very narrow. Cirt's behaviour should have been seriously scrutinised by the admin corps and dealt with there. For the unique reasons outlined immediately above, this hasn't happened, and considerable resentment has built up. Please don't accept that because Cirt has agreed to avoid the area in future, his behaviour doesn't need addressing. He's done this before. The misuse of sources, misuse of process and tendentiousness just moves into another area. I fully endorse Hobit's statement. Simple, balanced, intelligent scrutiny, and chiding where appropriate will resolve this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt. Do you acknowledge you have engaged in political activism here in support of the Anonymous agenda? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Chase me. The core issue is one editor's problematic behaviours, the most serious of which is using Wikipedia to undermine or promote political candidates in support of the Anonymous agenda. I would also like your opinion on how it is that this editor's problematic behaviours have been ignored for so long by the admin corps. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

This is unnecessary. I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. There's no serious problems with the articles about fringe religious groups beyond the usual editing issues. Nor for that matter is there any serious issue with Cirt's editing. In the current RfC about Cirt, about twice as many editors have said that there is no substantial problem with his editing than have claimed there is. Indeed, there are only six users (two initial and four endorsements) who have endorsed the main claim. That goes up to 11 users when one includes the next piece. In contrast, look for example at Gamaliel's opinion which sees minimal issues and at one point goes as far as to include the line "Are you fucking kidding me?" in regard to some of the claimed evidence against Cirt. That opinion has 21 endorsers. It seems clear that the communal consensus is that there's no serious issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Casliber, the situation doesn't require Jayen and Cirt to be bury the hatchet. The situation in that regard is pretty one sided. I don't think anyone has any examples of Cirt going after Jayen or articles written by Jayen in any substantial fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Off2riorob

As per User:ErrantX. I am willing to join in. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@RFC closed. - As I see it, the way the RFCuser in regard to User:Cirt has been closed by someone - User:Jehochman - clearly considered to be involved just adds weight and demonstrates why the the Arbitration request is required. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshuaZ - User:Jayen appears to (and no one is suggesting otherwise) write NPOV content of high quality so there is no need for anyone to "go after it" - and nobody has. User:Cirt on the other hand has written content (multiple articles) that has been divisive, disruptive, and in violation of core policy, called promotional, and been considered to be attacking and beneficial to off wiki campaigns and has been complained about and deleted and discussed at length. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Semitransgenic - I have no idea how you think your uninvolved and that as an uninvolved user you think its one side "with an axe to grind" attacking the other - In WP:ARBSCI - one of your alternative accounts - User:Voxpopulis was named as one of the "Low activity single purpose accounts (5) The following editors are single purpose accounts who have contributed towards creating a hostile environment:" - User:Voxpopulis and is actually WP:topic banned from Scientology - "(11) The following editors are topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account:" User:Voxpopulis - As such User:Semitransgenic is topic banned from Scientology and clearly not "uninvolved." under a header of "cults" - He was also blocked for using a sockpuppet on an Osho article, I reported him for that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Cirt

I stated at the previous, unsuccessful RFAR and in my RFC/U response that I've withdrawn from any area that could be remotely contentious, and I've apologized for creating misgivings in the past. I've returned to serving the project as well as I can in uncontroversial areas, and I wish to continue doing this. In response to Casliber's query "unless the two can agree to bury the hatchet somehow", I undertake to do anything the Committee advises me to do to attempt to resolve any issue that Jayen has with me. — Cirt (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Macwhiz additional statement

In response to the recommentations by Macwhiz regarding suggestions for how I should change my behavior, to prevent future discord:

  1. I’ll strive to maintain NPOV in articles by including material from all points of view reflected in secondary sources from research, especially on contentious subjects (while noting my prior statements from the previous unsuccessful RFAR and my initial RFC/U response and my statement at the current RFAR). I’ll apply all policies for content inclusion.
  2. I’ll work with other editors to ensure quotes from referenced sources give proper context for the reader.
  3. I won’t use self-published YouTube videos as sources if they refer to a third person.
  4. I won't nominate DYK or edit DYK candidates in the future.
  5. I’ll be more thoughtful, kind and polite with other editors on the project. I’ll work to adopt an attitude addressing other users with more care, and explaining to them in more detail if certain edits are objectionable, through references to site policies.
  6. I've engaged in a collaborative editing project with FA writer Wehwalt (talk · contribs) on a Quality Improvement Drive for articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases.
  7. I’d be willing to submit to a mutual interaction ban between myself and Jayen466 (talk · contribs).

— Cirt (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I have just closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt, a relatively easy task because there was a solid majority of logic behind one position. It's also inherently unfair for a user to be faced with RFC and RFAR at the same time. Editors should not try to win disputes by filing multiple dispute resolution processes at the same time in an effort to wear down an opponent.

The Committee would do well to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt carefully and familiarize themselves with the shenanigans that went on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt. Past cases to deal with personal feuds have gone no where good. Please be cautious about accepting another "omnibus we-hate-each-other case". The community is well capable of placing an interaction ban, should feuding editors be unable to disengage. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo (involved editor) reverted my closure of the RFC.[48] An administrator does not become involved by virtue of continuing administrative interventions in an attempt to promote the smooth operation of the project according to policies and guidelines. I do not make any substantial number of edits to the topics in dispute here, nor am I actively engaged in any disputes with these editors. Would somebody please restore the closure of the RFC. We must not allow disputants to edit war over closure actions merely because they disagree with the result. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, one of the RFC certifiers decided to undo User:The Wordsmith's close. This isn't going to end well. I'm not touching it again; too much heat; it's off my watchlist. I posted a note about the RFC status and warned editors not to take further actions as the status is in dispute. Surely Cla68 could have found an uninvolved administrators to revert the closure if that would have been a proper course of action. Those who certify an RFC or post an Outside View should not be the ones to close (or unclose).
  • To avoid the omnibus case fiasco, please ask the disputants to file one or more new requests identifying compact groups of editors and issues to consider. Jehochman Talk 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger, maybe you could just name the case "Disputes" and solve once and forever all problems on Wikipedia. Then again, you might want to focus a bit more narrowly... Jehochman Talk 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see two issues that should be investigated:

  1. Accusations of political advocacy by Cirt. Has Cirt violated Wikipedia:Advocacy (a page I started)?
  2. Possible abuse of dispute resolution processes by Cirt's critics. Dispute resolution is a way to hopefully resolve disputes, not method of continuing editorial battles, retaliating against opponents, nor a mere formality prior to requesting sanctions. Has dispute resolution been used in good faith, with an intention of resolving the problem, rather than escalating or seeking sanctions?

These questions can be efficiently investigated and decided. Once that is done, remaining issues will be easier to solve, possibly at the community level or failing that, with subsequent arbitration cases. Jehochman Talk 15:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I request that this case be held until the RFC concludes. It does not make sense to do two things at the same time. Editors apparently want the RFC to continue, and consensus appears to be coalescing around the statement of User:Macwhiz. I have asked Cirt to post a specific response to that view. We should see what Cirt has to say. Likewise, we should see if the primary authors of the RFA are willing to accept Cirt's response, or not. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Semitransgenic

this escalation from the RFC is unwarranted. The amount of energy Jayen has expended on initiating this process, evidences an unhealthy obsession with Cirt's editing behaviour, one that stretches back to conflict over [[49]]. We now have two factions, divided along idealogical lines, so framing the debate as somehow having something to do with "the good of the project" is fallacious, because it is clearly the result of resentment and emotional imbalance. We could throw up examples of other editors here, including Jayen, who have edited pages in a fashion that reflects particular idealogical biases, so suggesting that Wikipeida is capable of being a bastion of impartiality, when it is populated by editors with such differing political, religious and philosophical outlooks, is disingenuous. This is primarily about a group of editors with an axe to grind and this "good of the project" flag that is being flown is a smoke screen. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Off2riorob - Hello Rob, you last communicated with me on at 18:32, on the 12 January 2010, if you have any specific evidence that you would like to present here that demonstrates that I have contributed to the creation of a hostile editing environment in the last 18 months, perhaps it would advisable to offer it. Additionally, I have expressed a view, as I am entitled to do, the fact that you disagree with it does not entitle you contravene AGF. I hope you can all sort out your issues. Respectfully yours --Semitransgenic (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Count Iblis

Don't accept this case because you'll end up doing more harm than good. New disputes are likely to flare up during an ArbCom case like this, consider e.g. what Cla68 is complaining about now (I'm not saying that his complaints have any merit, its just an example of a new dispute coming up). There are a lot of similar disputes that people have learnt to live with, but sometimes a particular issue is too much for a group of editors. But the moment you want to intervene there, all these other hidden disputes will flare up. Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Coren

I remain convinced that there is a substantial and fundamental problem here that needs to be addressed regarding misusing Wikipedia's own notability and visibility in order to alter perception or notability of a subject. That living person's biographies are the battleground where those disputes tend to be played on makes it imperative that the committee steps in.

I am rather less convinced that this needs to be focused on any specific editor. While it is self evident that specific incidents coalesce around specific editors, the problem is that our rules were not meant to prevent that kind of abuse not that partisans end up abusing them. (This should come as no surprise; our founding principles could not take into account that the project itself would become a major source of notability or that one's Wikipedia article would someday become a critical part of one's public image.) — Coren (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On scope

I think there is the potential for a limited case on the principle of (mis)using Wikipedia to affect how prominent a subject is (as opposed to reflecting how notable the subject is independently). I.e.: using Wikipedia to googlebomb or otherwise make more visible something which would have had limited coverage and to create controversy where none existed (or where it was of limited scope).

If the principles are addressed, then editing behavior becomes possible to address without having to examine each dispute as part of the case itself. — Coren (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griswaldo

If the Committee accepts this case I strongly urge adding User:Jehochman to the list of involved parties. In his comment here he speaks of "shenanigans" but that's just what he is himself engaged in. Many of the comments in the RFC related to Cirt's use of noticeboards and the help of friendly admins to bully other editors or to get out jail free himself directly involve the supportive activities of Jehochman. This editor has a history of running interference for Cirt. That he took it upon himself to close the RFC and to leave a comment chastising those critical of Cirt leaves me speechless. This has gone far enough.Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman. You write: I do not make any substantial number of edits to the topics in dispute here, nor am I actively engaged in any disputes with these editors. Do you make a substantial number of edits to any topics? Not that I can tell. The fact that you have involved yourself in noticeboards, RfAs, and other non-content venues (as opposed to content areas) in ways that defend or promote Cirt does not make you uninvolved. Indeed it makes you more involved since the RfC and the arbitration do not relate to any specific content areas but do directly relate to the behavioral problems of Cirt. I would also like to note that you were clearly wrong about the RfC closing, ontop of being biased. It has been reverted back and that's how it will stand until such time that an Arbitration request is actually accepted on this matter.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman, again. You are utterly confused about the RfC closure. Cla68 and I did not "unclose" anything. We reverted something that was illegitimate--your close was against policy. Ncmvocalist explained this to you on your talk page. I and others have explained it at the RfC talk page. Most recently WhatamIdoing has put another clear explanation of this on the talk page. My original concern was with INVOLVED but as these numerous explanations have told your close was illegitimate even if that wasn't an issue. The current note you placed on the RfC is an exercise in IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and simply comes of as whining. The more you dig in your heals on this the more convinced I am of my original comment here. Your behavior requires scrutiny.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfozzie. I think there is some confusion over Jayen's remark regarding the RfC. He refers to "standard RfC process" when he suggests it should stay open. Part of that standard process involves closing an RfC once an arbitration has actually started. Georgewilliamherbert is asking for a special exception to close the RfC out of process, "as soon as there is significant indication that the case will be accepted." I agree with Jayen here that the RFC ought to continue until such time that there is an actual Arbitration case open. In other words there should be no break in between just because "there is significant indication that the case will be accepted." Closing the RfC once the case is actually open can be done by any uninvlved admin as part of the normal process. There is no need for GWH's special request. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rocksanddirt

There are two or three broad cases here: 1) Cirt-Jayen (and related) 2) Cult activism, and 3) political activism and notability. Other than Coren (who has been up in this whole thing recently), I do not think any of the committee should recuse due to involvement. I am unsure about the structure and level of effort required for such a case. But I do think the normal process might get a little tl,dr for everyone. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I agree that Jehochman is not univolved in a general way to this, as the user is very active on noticeboards and other dispute resolution mechanisms and has firm opinions as to other involved users motivations. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom harrison

I suggest the arbs reject this. Cirt has to a degree acknowledged the concerns and withdrawn from some areas. It's hard to imagine anything good coming from an arbitration. Coren makes a good point above and I share his concern, but fixing that isn't what the arbcom is for. I'm listed as a party, but don't anticipate taking part. Tom Harrison Talk 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by only-involved-in-an-administrative-capacity The Wordsmith

I'm only mildly involved because I endorsed closure of the RFC, but I remain neutral on the issues here. I urge the committee to take up this case, because I don't think the community can deal with this by itself. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Jusdafax

Suggest rejection. To accept in my view protracts the continued case, as I see it, of Cirt's detractors, who have forum shopped this matter to excess. After a lack of consensus here previously, Cirt's critics failed in the Rfc/U to gain traction with the community. Now this, designed in my view to further discourage a prolific and valued content creator. Cirt has edited difficult areas of the encyclopedia and has made tough calls as an admin; now he is the victim of violators of WP:HARASS and WP:BATTLE as a consequence. Efforts by some of Cirt's critcs to portray themselves as neutral and concerned 'whistleblowers' are without merit. Of special note in the Rfc/U was a later-withdrawn attempt to foment a "Cirt's enablers" list, designed, as are many of these on and off-wiki tactics, to have a chilling effect. NOTE: Though not named as involved, I endorsed in the Rfc/U and have commented elsewhere. For the record I am a previous WMF volunteer both on OTRS and at the Wikimedia offices in San Francisco, and as such have disclosed my identity. Jusdafax 19:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Tryptofish

There's enough history of drama that it would probably be helpful to the community if ArbCom could get this sorted out once and for all. However, I do not accept the premise that the RfC/U on Cirt had come to an impasse and needed to be closed. I was in the process of working through the evidence when it was abruptly closed, and I think it entirely possible that uninvolved members of the community could have made some sense of it if we had been given the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I commented in the neoligism RfC, but do not consider myself involved in any other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrators, prompted by Fozzie's question: I think it would be a mistake to treat this as an omnibus case, not least because so many of you would end up not participating. Better to split it up into several focused cases. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently familiar with this to be able to advise intelligently as to how to do that, but perhaps it would be useful to ask whether the numbered list of questions in ResidentAnthropologist's statement could be grouped into maybe three or four cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation

As I look at the events over the last 24 hours or so, I'd like to suggest the following to the Committee:

1. Please make an expedited ruling on the following narrow, binary question:
Should Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt be: (a) closed as of July 5, or (b) kept open for a total of 30 days?
The community is divided over this question and is unlikely to arrive at an agreement. If you could issue an injunction based on your ruling, that would settle it, and that, in turn, would be helpful in defining what should then be addressed in the case(s) here.
2. Decline the case requested here, with the explicit understanding that cases based on this request will be accepted shortly, and instruct the community to re-propose the requests as two or more cases. Right now, it looks like arbitrators are trying to manage the revision of this request within the request process, and that is a formula for failure. You need cases that, together, cover all of the areas of concern, while, individually, having clearly demarcated boundaries between them. You don't have that now. Already, some editors are endorsing Collect's suggestion, and other editors are objecting to it. There is a large risk that you could accept a hastily-designed case, only to be met with a chorus of objections as soon as you accept it. Editors who want this case heard should come back, probably within just a few days, with better thought-out proposals. With the exception of the RfC/U, no pages are currently in such a level of dispute that a week or so delay would be a problem; indeed many of the disputes have been going on for years.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved Richwales

Per Risker's request for feedback, I think there is an issue worth studying here w/r/t WP:AGF in the midst of policy disagreements. See the view I expressed in the RFC/U (here, including comments #3 and #4) — as well as my comment (#5) made to the RFC/U view by Andries (here).

Regarding my RFC/U view mentioned above, the conflict I had with Cirt "some time back" was over the Another Gospel article — and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (and an understanding of the whole anti-cult, anti-Scientology editing controversy, which I was totally clueless about at the time), I think I can understand how Cirt might have mistaken me for another partisan committed to removing and/or disrupting "unfriendly" material at any cost — though I do still think my attempts to improve this particular article were reasonable (if perhaps not well executed) and were deserving of more respect (or at least more courteous reproof) than I got. This was a year and a half ago, and I probably wouldn't even be bringing it up again now except that it appears Cirt has continued to act overly aggressively with other editors more recently. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be a question here of interpretation of policy. As Griswaldo mentioned in the RfC/U, an editor who questioned the appropriateness of content was quickly accused of disruptive editing by Cirt at AN/I, on the grounds that he had "refused to present reliable secondary sources to back up his spurious claims". Is this a proper interpretation and application of WP:RS? I fear such an interpretation could have the undesired effect of encouraging fringe articles, since it may be extremely difficult, or even impossible, to find a wide selection of reliable secondary sources on a topic that is fundamentally not notable. When the few sources that exist on a topic all appear to go one way, does that mean there is in fact only one generally accepted viewpoint, and that anyone questioning this (but without being able to provide sources supporting their contrary view) must by definition be ignoring WP:RS and committing the wiki-sins of WP:OR, POV pushing, and vandalism? Or might it instead mean that the subject may be so inherently obscure and non-notable that the reason why there are so few sources is that no one knows or cares enough about it to say anything? Cases like this are not always cut and dried, may require a healthy application of common sense, and are arguably one of the reasons for the WP:IAR policy — except that someone proposing to apply WP:IAR may, as a result, open him/herself up to accusations of editing disruptively in defiance of policy. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am LDS (Mormon) — a fact clearly mentioned on my user page. Some people, of course, consider the LDS church to be a "cult" (mostly mainstream Christians who object to Mormonism on theological grounds). I am, and (I believe) always have been, committed to even-handed and neutral coverage of all religions (including my own) on Wikipedia. My actions w/r/t the Another Gospel article were motivated, not by any desire to suppress information in pursuance of a partisan agenda, but rather out of concern that the page as I originally found it seemed to be unacceptably slanted towards the small-o "orthodox" Christian viewpoint of the book's author. While I do still have concerns over the notability of the topic (see my comments in the preceding paragraph), I and other editors (including Cirt) did eventually manage to broaden and balance the article, making it better than it had been. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Raul654

Several days ago, I made a comment on Cirt's RFC wherein I said that there should be consequences for people who file an RFC with false or otherwise trumped-up allegations (A large majority of people who commented on that RFC said essentially the same thing: that the allegations made in the RFC against Cirt were bogus, normal editing behavior spun to make it look malicious). Shortly thereafter, Cla68 issued an ultimatum on my talk page, demanding a retraction of my statement within 24 hours, and threatening that he "will act on it" if I did not. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that no such retraction would be forthcoming, and (pursuant to Cla's further demands) went on to document several allegations made by him and Jayen in the RFC that were obviously, objectively false. The whole discussion is worth reading, and can be found here.

In his above RFAR statement, Cla68 snidely comments that "it shouldn't be held against Cirt that some editors coming to his defense have acted this way," citing me by name. It takes a hell of lot of chutzpah for someone who uses the RFC process as a form of harassment to bemoan as "inappropriate and hurtful" the community's response to that harassment.

I'm not involved in the underlying sitation here, and I have no opinion one way or the other on whether or not this case should be accepted. But I wanted my rebutal included here as part of the record. And if the arbcom should accept this case, I think it should issue a statement of principle that filing a false RFC is a form of harassment, and an FOF that some of the allegations made in the Cirt RFC were completely false and most of the rest were trumped-up charges pertaining to ordinarily, productive editing behavior. Raul654 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved S Marshall

I think this is the first time I've ever had cause to edit an arbcom-related page, and I'm doing so now in response to Risker's request for feedback about the scope of the case. Risker, I don't think this is about cults, I'm afraid. I think this is about the alleged tactical use of Wikipedia, and tactical use of Wikipedian guidelines and policies, to achieve specific political or semi-political aims. I think its roots are in the email correspondence between SlimVirgin and Cirt, which I believe will have been read by most people editing this page, and which reeks of assumed bad faith and attempted controlling behaviour, so you need to consider that email exchange. The case has also expanded to encompass perceived "factions" of editors who are perceived to be allied with Cirt or SlimVirgin, who are alleged or perceived to have political agendas. These factions are part of the problem and need to be considered as well. But I think the underlying issue here is the way that highly experienced editors are alleged to have evaded or skirted around some rules and tactically employed others for political ends. I also think it's vital to have quite a transparent process here. To the maximum extent possible, it should be clear to cynical observers that nobody is above the law and nobody is entitled to a whitewash. A genuine and thorough investigation must be seen to take place.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Suggest this case be re-titled "Blood feuds" and scoped accordingly. I have no involvement (or interest) in the topic area but see many of the same names we see on the noticeboards, arbitration cases, WR and so on who are constantly trying to get other editors sanctioned for -- well, for whatever real or imagined misdeed they see at the moment. The issues over cults only provide the immediate context. Just as WWII wasn't really about the fate of Danzig, this case isn't really about BLP, neutrality, or any of that stuff. It's about grudges, settling scores, and asserting one's testosterone. The question is whether behavior like this is inevitable as a part of human nature, or whether Arbcom can do anything to curb it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the somewhat involved Hobit

I think there may well be serious enough issues with Cirt's editing to merit discussion. I was hopeful they could be worked out at the RfC/U however (some progress was being made on the talk page) and I believe Cirt's willingness to step away is enough to address much of that. If this does get accepted, I would like there to be a serious look at the behavior of those who are going after Cirt. Even if they are correct (and I suspect that's going to be "some yes, some no"), the actions of a number of editors have been highly unacceptable in my mind. The essay WP:BOMB started out as pretty much a pure swipe at Cirt--something I found distasteful in the extreme. SlimVirgin has continued to argue for keeping one external link to yet other Cirt-related issues there while ignoring any request for meaningful discussion. I'm also displeased that we went from ArbComm turning down a case to RfC/U and back to ArbComm in record time. The RfC/U was a mess, but not an unsolvable one. I think the community could have come up with a solution. Cirt needed to formally acknowledge past issues and a willingness to stay away from highly controversial issues. Those chasing after Cirt needed to acknowledge that their actions were less-than-ideal (which had already happened in a limited way on the talk page) and they need to agree to let others monitor Cirt and step away from the fray. Instead we are going to spend months going over all this just to reach that same conclusion.

So what do I suggest? Take the case, give people 1 week to build a case that Cirt had highly-biased editing. Give Cirt and others one week to respond. I think you'll end up with a pretty obvious situation where Cirt has some very one-sided writing and that due to Cirt's massive output that's actually the source of real problems. How serious and widespread those problems are, I'm not sure (that's why we pay you the big bucks). Figure out how to deal with that. Probably an admonishment, though maybe just a warning or a noop if the problems are minor 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC). Then look over the hounding and generally bad behavior of some of those who have been chasing after Cirt. Figure out what to do with them (in most or all cases I think an interaction ban perhaps with some admonishment for particular actions would be plenty. The point needs to be made however that you can't hound someone even if they are doing something wrong). Perhaps there is a related problem with those supporting Cirt--if so, I've not seen any evidence of that, but it would certainly be reasonable to pursue here. Basically, there is no reason for this case to drag out for more than a couple of weeks. The only issues I see are A) was Cirt's editing so one-sided as to be a serious problem? If so, how serious? B) Did the folks going after Cirt cross the line in some of their actions? Both can be dealt with pretty quickly. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floquenbeam

Please accept this case. With any luck, digging through years of past grievances, posting dozens (hundreds?) of diffs as evidence, making endless "proposed sanction" suggestions on the workshop, and calling each other names will occupy so much of the time of the Hatfields and the McCoys, that they'll stay away from the encyclopedia portion of the project for weeks (or if ArbCom manages it with some skill, months). The final result of the case won't really matter; the benefit to the encyclopedia will be to keep both sides occupied. The least useful editors will self-select by participating heavily in the case; the ones who aren't primarily out for their pound of flesh will ignore it and find something constructive to do instead. You could even make the final decision be to block, indefinitely, the top 10 posters to the workshop page (although by saying it out loud I may have ruined that option). I'm not sure if I would recommend breaking it into several small cases, and dragging it out by handling them one after the other, or leaving it as one omnibus case, which might bog down so much it would take even longer than several cases in series. I leave that to wiser minds. It won't really take too much time out of ArbCom's schedule, because you could pretty much ignore the case completely, and both sides would be so busy slinging mud that they wouldn't notice.

I'm not joking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally-involved Quigley

I have only been an observer and commentator on the Cirt-Jayen466 feud from the month-old santorum controversy onward, while I understand that the Cirt–Jayen issues around cultic areas have been acute since 2007. An injunction to the parties not to interact with those with opposing views needlessly during the case would be helpful. I proposed a similar idea in the Cirt RfC/U discussion, because of persistent perceptions of "wikihounding"[50][51][52] and "bullying"[53][54][55] on both sides.

The core issue is an interpersonal dispute between Jayen466 and Cirt, from which all of the accusations of political activism, COI, and pro- and anti-cult editing spring. Whether there is "political activism" or "pro-NRM POV" in certain editors' motives is hotly contested on all sides,[56][57][58] but that there is a longstanding disruptive relationship between Cirt and Jayen466 is something with which all parties can agree.

A peripheral, but important issue that has not yet been satisfactorily solved is to what extent the role of editors on internet forums and mailing lists in fomenting opposition to other editors should be tolerated by the community. What would probably be described as canvassing, meatpuppetry, and wikihounding in the case of other venues was tacitly encouraged on Wikipedia Review[59][60][61][62] and WikiEn-l[63][64] by Jayen466, Delicious Carbuncle, and others in their pursuit of Cirt. The extensive crossposting on such offwiki forums allowed for the proliferation of a lot of bad-faith assumptions that would not have existed otherwise. Quigley (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by somewhat-involved Georgewilliamherbert

It appears to be trending too late to apply what is probably the "right solution" - six to eight trouts and about 12 minnows, and consideration of a mid-term community interaction ban. This is unfortunate, as none of the people involved here are fundamentally bad editors, and I suspect the case is only going to end up with more hard feelings.

If it can't be avoided, I urge the committee to keep in mind that AGF should be really hard to refute about longstanding, well known positive contributors, all around. Even when editors are acting in bad faith torwards one another, in some situations it's clear that they're doing so from a deep desire to do right by the encyclopedia and community, even if there are large teams or cliques who are at odds and fighting.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for motion

I believe that the RFC is engendering bad blood at this time and not moving towards constructive resolution, and additionally is redundant to the apparently likely accepted case here; I would like to request a preliminary motion that the RFC is paused and frozen as-is (along with its talk page) as soon as there is significant indication that the case will be accepted, and/or is accepted. All issues should then be rephrased in case-appropriate evidence, evidence talk, workshop, and workshop talk proceedings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Andries

I used to edit cult/NRM area extensively and got into serious conflicts because of this.

I think this is too broad and diffuse for an arb com case. I think there are several issues and they need to be tackled separately, though some combinations are possible.
1. Cirt's alleged activism in politics
2. Jayen's alleged hounding of Cirt.
3. General phenomenon of factions in the cult/NRM area
4. Cirt's alleged activism in Scientology
5. Cirt's editing behavior in general

From an Arbcom perspective, I do not think that nr. 3 will help Wikipedia very much, because the subject is diverse and complex. Besides, except from Scientology the contents of Wikipedia is not bad. I think that there should be a better communication/understanding between anti-cultists and those editors who favor a more lenient view. I think I can help a bit with that, though I admit that I tend to agree with the anti-cultists in most cases. I personally consider the contents of the Scientology set of articles overly critical and showing an obsession with trivia.


Nr. 3 should not be combined with nr. 1, I think.

Allegations of political activism strikes me as the most damaging to Wikipeda. Andries (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Wnt who wrote: "I don't think it should ever be an offense for someone like Cirt not to do something, not to add something. The complainers had more than ample opportunity to add any balancing material he missed, so they're just as "guilty" as he is for leaving it out. They must not be allowed to set themselves up as the editors-in-chief who hire and fire the people who write the articles. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)"

I admit that Wnt makes a good point, but I do not have enough knowledge to edit Scientology related articles. I admit that I also felt intimidated, because some editors seem to be obsessed with the subject. Andries (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt, no, please continue to edit controversial subjects, because I think you made many good edits. I only have my doubts about Scientology and Santorum, because these are issues that cannot be easily correct by other authors. Andries (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

@Floquenbeam: +1 (though obviously AC couldn't ignore the case completely after accepting it as both "sides" always notice when there is a lack of supervision; but it may help put an end to it all...see also my comments on the RfC/U talk). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delicious carbuncle

I don't want to diminish the efforts of Resident Anthropologist and Jayen466 for the tedious and time-consuming work involved in putting together this case and the RFC/U on Cirt, but I have no hope that anything lasting will come of either of those efforts. I believe that the community at large has become more aware and less tolerant of Cirt's particular brand of POV-pushing. The truly farcical expansion of Santorum (neologism) became the swan song of that account. Having turned a blind eye for so long, it is unlikely that ArbCom will sanction a prolific admin account, despite the numerous violations of WP:BLP that have been unearthed. My involvement in this area was never an interest in new religious movements. My interest is in the fair and consistent application of our policies and rules. All too often when dealing with unpopular figures like Rick Santorum or members of the Church of Scientology, we ignore our own policies.

New religious movements are going to attract biased editors and need to be given extra, impartial scrutiny for exactly that reason. After pleading and agitating for more scrutiny of Scientology-related editing for months now, little has changed. As a handy example, User:Henry Sewell added Grant Cardone to List of Scientologists on 27 June 2011. Although 96 people have that page on their watchlist (and it appears on at least one project watchlist), no one has has removed this violation of WP:BLPCAT, which requires self-identification of religious affiliation. Similarly, Grant Cardone now has been expanded, sourced in part to a Scientology website, to detail Cardone's involvement with Scientology. Is Cardone a Scoentologist? It seems like he is, but how is it relevant to his notability? This is a trivial, but typical, example. If we can't find a way to deal with the obvious and overt cases like this, what hope do we have of maintaining a neutral point of view when the more subtle editor will be back time and time again to push a point of view? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Wnt

To get an idea of the scope of this dispute, consider that the same factions are currently involved in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky - even though only two of the parties named here have voted there. The provenance being anti-Cirt activism -> santorum (neologism) -> Lewinsky (neologism) -> wrongful block of User:Kiwi Bomb -> Bernard Lewinsky. This is less the Hatfields and McCoys, more a widespread and ideologically motivated civil war between those who build the encyclopedia and defend those who do against those who tear down the work and try to punish people for doing it. Please, do not just pick out a few people on each side to sanction to teach them not to bother you. I think that in general too many rules and policies have been slanted or misinterpreted to favor those who like to go out and find people to bother, and the inclusionists need some indication of support or we're going to end up with an encyclopedia made entirely of people trying to get each other sanctioned.

Raul654 is right that RfC/U complaints should have some minimum level of quality so they don't become mere personal attacks. When an RfC like that one for Cirt comes up, with so many irrelevant or unreasonable accusations, a truly neutral and uninvolved administrator should pull the plug on the process early on and tell people to come back with a smaller list of charges that have more validity, if they can.

I commented in the Noleander case that it is wrong to look at an "overall pattern" of edits. I would say someone is not a bad editor unless he submits individually bad edits with some frequency. We want police who pull people over because they were doing 75 in a 55, not because they say, "I've been keeping an eye on you, and I don't like the way you drive." I am minded to blame the spirit of the Cirt RfC on this kind of thinking - it's what I was afraid would happen. If ArbCom becomes involved here, I hope it will be to pull back from or at least limit the precedent set there,[65] rather than expanding it.

I don't think it should ever be an offense for someone like Cirt not to do something, not to add something. The complainers had more than ample opportunity to add any balancing material he missed, so they're just as "guilty" as he is for leaving it out. They must not be allowed to set themselves up as the editors-in-chief who hire and fire the people who write the articles.

@JN466 - true, that Angle text looks like it belongs in Second Chance Program, the new article Cirt helped spin off soon after in respect to WP:UNDUE concerns. And I do hate those uncivil canned little warning messages altogether. But putting together that information was an encyclopedic thing to do, and I see nothing ArbCom needs to redress there.

Procedural comment by Tony1

Uninvolved, and bored by and rather ignorant of the substance of the case. I just want to respond to SirFozzie's queries below. The number of named parties and the emotive atmosphere are horrifying. This shows all the signs of becoming an epic Scientology- or climate-change kind of case—lasting five months, generating three quarters of a million words, causing huge drama in the community, and damaging the editorial fabric. At least one arb implied publicly late last year that the Committee is still working out how to deal with mega-nasty cases. Therefore, I wonder whether this one could be approached by making it a high priority to:

  1. determine a reasonably tight scope and set of goals for the case at the start, including whether it should be split out into separate cases (that's a tough one);
  2. consider imposing practical and well-delimited sanctions, or wider injunctions, earlier rather than later (waiting half a year belies the goal of protecting the project);
  3. minimise bloat and drama between the parties during the case (severe word limits and restrictions on grenade-like discourse); and
  4. impose deadlines on the stages of the case, so everyone's disciplined to get it over in six or eight weeks (deadlines changeable only if the Committee later finds it really must change them)?

It's been suggested below that community RfCs might be a viable part of the process. Could the development of these be set in motion relatively early, under the management of a clerk or two. This case (if accepted) could be model for how the Committee might manage mega-nasties in the future. [267 words] Tony (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orderinchaos

(Not sure whether to list myself as "semi-involved", as I was involved with the Pieter Kuiper case some years ago.)

I've been around Wikipedia a fair while now - over five years - and this would have to be the single worst case of procedural bullying of a single user I've ever seen. I've seen over the past two months an almost never-ending continuum of RFCs, re-RFCs, poorly-justified (and even contradictory) allegations being flung around, ArbCom 1, now ArbCom 2. I think Cirt must have nerves of steel not to have retired by now. Considering his abilities and the fact that we are slowly losing editors and not picking up new ones, I would think that some of the behaviour directed at Cirt - in particular the persistent hounding for a number of years by User:Jayen466, the ultra-bad-faith comments by User:Off2riorob and the involved partisan behaviour of some other critics - would have to be a key focus of this case if it is to be accepted. I would hate to think of any editor ever being treated this way again and it would set a truly shameful precedent if that matter was not fully investigated but others were. Orderinchaos 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using this space to endorse the comment by MacWhiz below. Orderinchaos 14:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators should note this contribution on the RfC, where Jayen alleges that Cirt is in league with unnamed early Wikipedians and arbitrators who are anti-Scientology, who have allegedly facilitated his editing or even ghostwritten. I am beginning to wonder just how more bizarre this will get. Orderinchaos 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Macwhiz

It seems we have gone from accusing Cirt of editing the santorum article for political reasons based on the timing of the edits (since disproven [66]) to throwing every charge up to and including misusing the word "several" at him [67] to... making him a cultist?

I don't think the question of Cirt's editing is ripe for ArbCom yet. The RFC/U has not been given enough time, especially considering the holiday weekend in the US just passed.

However, I can see RA's point regarding the fallout from the RFC/U. I have criticized Jayen's RFC/U vocally, because I felt it to presume bad faith, to summarize events while omitting details that were exculpatory for Cirt,[68][69] selectively quote sources to make them appear more supportive of the indictment than they actually were (while at the same time accusing Cirt of doing the same),[70] mischaracterize conversations between Cirt and other editors,[71][72], describe Cirt's work with negative language while puffing similar work by others,[73] and generally assume that Cirt's actions came from malice.[74] Now I am named in an RFAR that seemingly implies I acted in bad faith because I might be a cultist.

Cirt's editing does raise questions for me. There are issues to be discussed. However, the RFC/U in question wasn't written to help Cirt, but to accuse him of Wikipedia "high crimes". It was written as a witch hunt. I don't seem to be alone in that opinion. Calling editors that call WP:DUCK on such, while accusations aboud of Cirt "bullying" people with WikiProcess, before ArbCom shocks me. I do not defend Cirt per se; I defend the idea that Wikipedians shouldn't be subject to insinuations, suppositions, inferences, and innuendo in DR that we wouldn't permit in a BLP.

Clearly there are issues for ArbCom to address: Should RFC/Us be accusatory instruments or AGF interventions? Did this RFC/U descend into ad hominem attacks? Must an editor that disagrees with you be "one of them"? Is it appropriate for an RfC/U to infer the motivations of an editor where no solid evidence for such exists, and where alternative explanations are available? Where is the line between "whistleblowing" and "wikihounding"?

ArbCom should accept a case about the behavior of parties in the DR process for Cirt, narrowly construed. Clearly someone needs to better define AGF and civil discourse. It should use care to avoid polarizing the case into two camps; people may agree on a statement without having the same reasons or beliefs about it. It should also find a way to put the Cirt issue to bed once and for all. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one insists on drawing lines around "camps", I insist that there are at least three "camps" present: Those who have an issue with Cirt and Cirt's editing; those who oppose the first camp primarily because they are supportive of Cirt; and those who oppose the first camp primarily because they find the methods and tactics employed by said camp to be objectionable as a matter of principle. Of course, some of the second and much of the third camp also have issues with Cirt's editing, which shows how unproductive the "us vs. them" viewpoint is. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie

This should not become an unwieldy omnibus case. Put aside the issues that aren't ripe. Perhaps concentrate not even on Cirt, but on the behavior surrounding the discussion of Cirt's editing as a prerequisite to productive discussion of Cirt's editing. The core issue here isn't Cirt's behavior; it's how the DR process isn't working in this case, and how polarized the issue—and the language used in discussing it—has become. Perhaps this wouldn't be at ArbCom if editors didn't feel free to engage in personal attacks [75], incivility, [76][77][78] and whole threads of... I don't even know what to call it, but it just ain't right from either side.[79][80]

An injunction against unnecessary interaction seems to me more likely to cause trouble than prevent it, given how wide-ranging the discussions are; it would ban a good number of fairly-active editors from interacting, which would harm the project. However, injunctions against specific forms of bad behavior might be appropriate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Elen of the Roads

I certainly understand your inclination, and I agree that this RFAR presents difficulties.

However, there has been an awful lot of incivility in and around this issue. Each individual act may not rise to the level of initiating DR procedures, but as a whole, it's a worrying trend. Plus, if one were to file WQAs or RfC/Us on each instance of someone improperly venting, being pigheaded, or otherwise not helping matters, the explosion in DR drama would be staggering. Plus, it would inevitably wind up back here. On the other hand, it may pass unremarked: I've seen some behavior that I just can't believe, but I'd rather get back to editing, and not spend my time filing WQAs that turn into furballs. I haven't been editing Wikipedia long, but it seems like there's a lot of reluctance to call experienced editors to task for incivility.

So, even if ArbCom declines the case as a whole, would it be possible to make some statement regarding the civility of discourse in the matters at hand, perhaps providing admonishments where appropriate? ArbCom is in a position to provide a wake-up call, and stave off allegations of bullying and gamesmanship if someone does decide to pursue DR for the more egregious civility breaches seen in this brouhaha. It might help prevent this from winding up back at ArbCom's doorstep over and over again. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On scope

The issues I would like to see addressed:

  • A binding arbitration of the longstanding disagreement regarding Cirt's editing behaviors between Jayen and Cirt specifically.
  • Over time, has that disagreement come to be engaged by "blocs" of editors that are joining the battlefield for improper motives rather than good-faith dispute resolution and the best interests of the project?
  • Where is the boundary between good-faith use of the DR system and "bullying", and has it been crossed by any side in this disagreement?
  • What are the appropriate bounds of civility and good faith in a dispute such as this, have they been crossed, and if so what needs to be done to make it crystal clear that incivility and bad faith is toxic to the DR process and not to be tolerated?

// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved DGG

As I see it, by far the most serious charge is the rather clearly biased editing on political topics, but this is a part of the POV concentration on scientology=related topics. I consider such editing to be a clear breech of trust, certainly enough to cast doubt on continued functioning as an admin, and also enough to warrant an topic-based editing restriction. The interpersonal conflicts are partly from this, and partly from an extended period of mutual resentment, and an interaction ban, such as seems to have been voluntarily entered into by at least some of the parties, will best deal with it. I don't really see this as the proper place to discuss more general matters--the narrow ones can be dealt with more easily. The almost total failure of the DR process when long-term admins are involved is not going to be solved quickly, and if arb com wants to make some suggestions, it would be best to do it outside of this specific case. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC) @NYB--The only way to assure that Cirt does not drift back again into this area, thus avoiding the need for another full case, would be to provide some enforceable sanctions. And if arb com does not act decisively about something as demonstrably wrong as this from someone as senior and respected as Cirt, when would it act? That part of the case is not he-said, she-said, but obvious plain-view editing. As others have said, any relative newcomer would have been blocked straight out.Most other aspects, such as the interpersonal conflict, or the general nature of editing on cult-related topics, are not as clearly one person's fault. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO

This case appears to have all the components necessary to ensure more drama and provide less than vague results, few of which may be positive. There are some circumstances in which being uncompromising and polarizing are beneficial to the encyclopedic integrity of our articles...some editors help the project greatly simply by being rigid and unwielding in their positions...if the end result here would reduce the ability to be uncompromising, then the encyclopedia will suffer. Unless the scope of this is greatly reduced, I would strongly suggest arbcom reject this case.--MONGO 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that in agreement with User:Collect, BLP's and maybe even all bios should not become coatracks for opinions.--MONGO 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by completely uninvolved BorisG

The mess created around the issues mentioned by the filing party does indeed warrant a look by the ArbCom. However I have serious doubts that a maze of inter-related feuds and underlying editing issues can be resolved to the benfit of the encyclopedia and the editing community (well, since ArbCom consists of mere mortals). I would thus suggest that the case or cases need to be more focused (per NYB). I would suggest that the most serious issue is the alleged misuse of Wikipedia (and specifically BLPs) for activist purposes (per Coren and Collect), including, at the most extreme end of the spectrum, writing or substantially expanding biographies of minor political figures in a biased way close to elections. I think this should invole examination of the conduct of the editor or editors in question, but may also involve tuning up of (BLP?) policies if required. Perhaps issues of cults and related feuds can be handled separately.

I would also suggest that Cirt's repeated promises to refrain from editing controversial areas are useful but insufficient, because they at least give a perception that he is avoiding acknowledgement (and scrutiny) of probelmatic behaviour allegged by other parties. - BorisG (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the biggest danger is that the ArbCom case will turn into a battle between the two factions. Not knowing the history of the fued, I don't quite understand what these factions are, but the presence of factions here is clear for everyone to see. I hope the ArbCom in its wisdom will somehow prevent this battle, and will be able to focus on underlying issues, drawing, in particular, on the opinion of uninvolved editors, as well as their own analysis. - BorisG (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Elen of the Roads makes a good point. The proponents of this case need to go back to the drawing board and draw a much more focused case or cases. I suggest that the main case should evolve around misuse of Wikipedia to promote outside causes, activism, and campaigning. But there may be other ideas. - BorisG (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved TotientDragooned

It has been far longer than 24 hours since this case received "net four" accept votes... is there a reason this case isn't open yet? TotientDragooned (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case still isn't open? ArbCom moves glacially enough without imposing out-of-process delays from the very start! Strongly urge the clerks to follow arbitration policy and open the case for having had net four accept votes for at least five full days now. The Committee can always vote on a motion to dismiss the case if they have regrets about opening the case. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by possibly involved Jmh649 (Doc James)

Wikipedia currently has a issue with multiple WP:SPA or nearly SPAs who spend their time over years unbalancing pseudoscience / cult / new religious movement topic areas. If you look at the edit histories of some who have commented here those who belong in this group become obvious. These people do not appear to be here to write a neutral encyclopedia but to promote a POV. They have made multiple attempted to discredit editors who try to add mainstream opinions that disagree with their own. We need better mechanisms to deal with this issue. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Carter of unknown involvement to date

I don't remember having been involved in this little melodrama, but, hey, maybe some one will disagree. I get the impression that this RfA is maybe almost as big a clusterfuck as the RfC is said to have been, or at least getting there. I think it might really, really help if we had a fairly clearly-defined parameters regarding what the area to be addressed by the proposed arbitration would be. If the Santorum matter, which is a significant concern, that is one thing. The question about editing content relating to alleged "cults" and other groups which have been referred to insultingly is I think another matter entirely. Honestly, as an individual, I can see fair grounds for both, and would actually personally probably support both. But, unless we want the arbitrators to be forced to wade through evidence pages as long as the OED, some sort of limitations on scope would probably be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mlm42

I have no involvement here, other than a single comment during the santorum RfC last month. I have read most of the comments here, as well as at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Cirt (partially because it's mildly entertaining to see such drama). The exact nature of the problem seems somewhat elusive, but it appears to revolve around a small number of editors, and the topic of idealogical activism. Broad, nearly unanswerable questions being raised are: (1) How do we identify idealogical activism, and when is it okay? (2) When is it okay to accuse other editors of activism? To me, the Santorum fiasco demonstrated that Wikipedia can be effectively used as a tool for idealogical activists (which isn't to say that it was used by activists..). Perhaps this RFAR is Wikipedia experiencing growing pains; hopefully ArbCom will be able to help with some pain-relief. Sorry if this comment was entirely unhelpful. Mlm42 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by involved Waalkes

I agree that the way this case is presented, it is confusing and seems to cover too many issues and personalities. However, I have a proposal for re-formulating it so that it can be readily adjudicated: I propose that the case be re-titled "Attack Articles." That seems to be the common denominator. It is not difficult to detect it when someone is cherry-picking the internet for negative source material on a group or individual that he doesn't like, and then giving that material undue weight with unnecessary and redundant detail. The result is always something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If the named individuals are found to have done that, topic bans are in order. It won't hurt the articles, and the editors in question can find other articles where they can be more neutral. Waalkes (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Note regarding the apparent delay to opening this case: While this case has reached the net four necessary to open, the Committee is currently discussing specifics regarding the name and scope of this case. In the meantime, the clerks have also requested more actual votes from the committee to (preferably) attain a majority in favor of opening this case, due to the reject vote added tonight and evident contention surrounding the case as a whole. This case will be opened as soon as we get the OK from the Committee. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/2/4)

  • I am willing to accept a case about cults in general, with the list of parties carefully managed to only include people who have had bitter disagreements on cult topics; the political activism editing would be beyond scope. Alternatively, a different case specifically about Cirt and Jayen is worth considering, including only parties who've been closely aligned with either party, however Cirt's decision to change his topic of interest may render this unnecessary. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • accept - this has been brewing for a long time. Alot of this is driven by ongoing feuds. I must say this case makes me feel like running and burying my head in the sand but I concede that the buck does stop with the committee and I tend to think we've reached that point. I need to think about the whether the scope needs to be as broad as the request requests. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay then, the one problem that has been ongoing is the issue between Cirt and Jayen66, which I would see as the most pressing reason for a case, unless the two can agree to bury the hatchet somehow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm considering recusal in this case, due to my editing habits in and around other areas of Wikipedia's coverage of religion, and solicit input from the parties on whether they think my recusal would be appropriate. If no one thinks I'll be inappropriately biased after a day, I'll chime in. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept because while I may envy the Arbs who have a good reason to recuse, I really can't say that I have one, and this needs to be hashed out in some way, shape, or form. I'm not specifically endorsing opening this case as put forth here--several make good points that this may need to be broken up into smaller areas in order to have effective scope, and I think that's an excellent idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements. I am concerned that the scope of this case as presented may be too wide - having so many issues together in one case may result in none of them receiving adequate treatment. –xenotalk 14:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse; given the concerns I expressed recently regarding an article that was substantially written by Cirt. — Coren (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, as there's a lot in this case that could be addressed; as John points out however nothing will be really addressed unless it's opened on a relatively narrow scope. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After examining all the editor's statements again and the clarifications requested, I think the only actionable part of this specific request is the editor conduct including and in relation to Cirt. CHL has a point that trying to tackle the BLP issues as well could lead to an intractable case that wouldn't please anyone. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse - I was involved in a lengthy dispute with Will in regard to List of cults. I've also edited other articles in this subject area, so I'll sit this one out. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks to me like there are several different cases being proposed here, all somewhat interrelated. More feedback from those who are commenting about whether this should focus on interpersonal issues between a small number of editors, or whether we should be looking big-picture at the manner in which WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV balance against the creation of new articles or content, or the coverage of cults, or balancing WP:BLP against other policies, would be useful in determining scope. Risker (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will be inactive for at least the beginning of the case, but I'm going to post a few thoughts, and I would appreciate (brief) answers from parties and interested onlookers: A) From the request and the statements of some of the parties, it looks like this has the possibility of being the "Great Omnibus Case of 2011". There are those who have a very wide-ranging view of what the Committee should consider, and others who want it to be focused more narrowly. Would it serve all to open one wide-ranging case? Should the committee split the case to be several related cases, related but not interdependent? Put aside some of the side issues that are possibly not yet ripe for arbitration? B) If accepted, would an injunction (or instruction, more accurately) to the parties to not interact with those with opposing views needlessly during the case (outside whatever's necessary for whatever case does get accepted, of course) be useful? C) And this is more of a personal aside. The more wide ranging the case, the longer it will take to issue a proposed decision and the more likelihood of a "hung jury" proposed decision. What do the parties feel that is the absolute core issue that must be resolved here? SirFozzie (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
    • I disagree with JN: Once the case is opened, people should be submitting evidence to the Arb, NOT the RfC. Keeping both running concurrently is a waste of effort and time. SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I beg a bit of indulgence here. The case should be formally accepted soon, we're just having discussions on the scope and the name of the case.. we'd rather take a little extra time now to decide the scope/name of the case rather thaen open it and have a bunch of information posted that may not fall into the scope of the case. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to hold off on voting for a day or two so that I can take a look at the diffs The Resident Anthropologist (filing party) has indicated he'll be posting; these may be relevant to my initial reaction that while there are common elements underlying the various issues he raises, they don't have enough in common to warrant treatment as a single case. (Last year we took three somewhat-related requests and consolidated them into the Climate change case; I think it's unanimously agreed that turned out to be a case-management error of serious proportions.) That being said, this case raises fascinating wikiphilosophical issues—whether the treatment of some of the BLP subjects mentioned in the comments was satisfactory (obviously it was not, and we could take the case to make the points about politically charged BLPs that I thought we should have made in the "Santorum" case), and what should be done about that, is one; how precisely to apply the anti-bigotry principle we established in Noleander to so-called "cults" and "fringe groups" (an issue raised in comments to my "thought experiment" that accompanied the proposed decision), especially when the "cult" has both religious and non-religious aspects, is another; whether these and similar issues are mere content disputes or rise to the level of user-conduct problems is a third. But if Cirt sticks to his word that he will no longer edit in these areas—and gives the scope of that refocusing a broad sweep, rather than working at the margins—I am not sure we have a well-defined issue or group of issues for a case. As indicated, weighing these thoughts and awaiting the diffs before voting to accept or decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Two additional thoughts: (1) I also would appreciate brief responses to SirFozzie's questions, and (2) if this request is accepted, we definitely will need a new casename. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just gotten back on-wiki tonight after a few days away, and am catching up. I'll vote on acceptance and comment (perhaps too extensively) during the tomorrow (ET). My apologies for the delay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: "Cults" is a wildly inappropriate name for this ("Feuds" would be better, and SBHB's proposal of "Blood feuds" arguably better still). More importantly, focussing on cults ignores the herd of elephants stomping and trumpeting in the room. What this is about is feuding over ideological issues - for example, Scientology, LaRouche, climate change, and even the philosophical "bare all" -v- "human dignity" arguments over BLPs - and how bitter these ideological disputes become. As an extension of these bitter disputes, guidelines like COI and policies like SOCK are used to justify outrageously invasive discussions of actual living people. Speculation about who they are, where they live/work, who their real life friends are, how they vote, whether they wear briefs or boxers, even who they're sleeping with, suddenly become appropriate topics for online discussions. This all needs urgently reconciling with the privacy and outing policies and if they are lacking then they need clarifying with homegrown ones to supplement them. This case will serve well to identify the issues and to form the basis of an RFC (or likelier a series of RFCs) to establish consensus on the bigger picture. Before any one squawks, these are all firmly and indisputably conduct issues.  Roger Davies talk 06:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the focus around Cirt, or around BLPs, or around the disruption caused by polarised political views? I can't legitimately accept this mess - if there are multiple components, someone needs to sort them out, and come back with some clear problems that Arbcom (which cannot rule on content, cannot create policy, and cannot sanction an individual editor without evidence of policy breaches by that editor) has some hope of sorting out. Otherwise, it appears this will end in a sea of evidence that "X edited in a way I didn't like", with 250 editors involved, and a case that takes a year to fail to resolve. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, after having spent the better part of two days reading through the relevant diffs, discussions and pages. This is potentially a big case, and I think some scaling back is in order. It's tempting to get all the problems solved in one huge swipe, but I think there'd be too much collateral damage in doing so. I have to echo SirFozzie: What do the parties feel that is the absolute core issue that must be resolved here? The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Such an amorphous dispute (LaRouche is a "cult"?) could only increase drama, in my opinion. This is more of a fantasy battle royale than an actual identifiable dispute, and I'm surprised it's gotten such traction. I cannot support taking it unless it is focused; there may be one or more cases here, involving barely overlapping parties, but I don't want to see another C68-SV-ETC omnibus case. Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would conditionally support opening a case regarding coatracks (focused on the ones apparently promoted by Cirt) or a Cirt/Jayen case. I do not support taking all of the cases proposed above. I do not even support taking all of the topics proposed by arbitrators above, but upon further review I think at least one of these topics should be examined. Cool Hand Luke 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The committee is still working on appropriately scoping this case, with a detailed discussion about splitting it into two or more cases currently ongoing. Our apologies to the community and the clerks for the delays opening this, but we're trying to scope things so that, once opened, the scope of appropriate evidence, principles, and findings is not in dispute. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Motions

For these motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.

Motion 1

The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will:

a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties;
b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles;
c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein.
Support:
  1. Let's get this moving ...  Roger Davies talk 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Righto. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Comments on Motion 1

Comment by Arbitrators:
Thinking procedurally here, the cases could be handled as follows:
a. The cases will open without statements and with "The Arbitration Committee by motion" as the filing party.
b. A link to the current request will be provided in a hatnote.
c. Editors are invited to re-submit the statements made in this request on the applicable evidence pages, suitably redacted and/or sub-edited to reflect the case scopes and evidence length guidelines, within seven days of the case pages opening.
d. Material may not be duplicated in the two cases.
e. The Arbitration Clerks are asked to pay particular attention to evidence length and editor decorum.
 Roger Davies talk 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Griswaldo: It's to break it up into bite-sized pieces, with clear scopes, so that the cases can move to resolution swiftly. We've also rolled several requests into one before, to create omnibus cases that take forever to finish. It's worth trying it the other way round.  Roger Davies talk 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Given that most of the evidence Cla68 and I submitted as part of the RfC/U was about BLP issues, I find it invidious in the extreme that I should participate in a case based on interpersonal issues, but not participate in the case on BLP issues. Could someone please explain the reasoning for that? It seems to me that the way this is set up is clearly aimed at
  1. preventing me from bringing arbitration evidence on the BLP and other policy violations I highlighted,
  2. ensuring that Cirt will not have to answer those charges,
  3. pretending those violations, including the election shenanigans, never occurred, and
  4. sanctioning me for having raised them, or having "attacked" Cirt.
If I misunderstood that, please enlighten me. And, by the way, am I correctly informed that there is a behind-the-scenes rumour mill campaign going on, originating with Cirt, JzG and David Gerard, claiming that I am a Scientologist here "on official business"? Just in case you're wondering, it's false. And I wonder how many new religious movements I will yet be accused of representing here. Do you actually care about policy-compliant content in this encyclopedia? Because it's not apparent to me from the case scope choices proposed above. They seem to be designed to address anything but that. So, may I suggest that you include an explicit statement to the effect that Cirt's BLP editing, as well as his editing related to cults and political campaigns will be a part of the "personal conduct" issues looked at in this case, and that the community will be invited to submit evidence pertaining to those issues? Just to get that on the board, so to speak. Cheers, --JN466 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I opposed Jayen's RfC/U on general principles. While I still think the RfC/U should have been done differently and there are real Jayen/Cirt issues to resolve, Jayen has now persuaded me that at least some of his allegations about Cirt's editing have merit. I believe that Cirt has, at a minimum, evaded the Committee's instructions in the ARBSCI case.[81] As proposed, this motion fails to address that aspect of this issue. If the Committee means to say that this is part of the "interpersonal issues", it's unclear. I think there's three issues: The Cirt/Jayen interaction, the civility of the related discussions, and the actual issue of Cirt's editing. I do not believe that the RfC/U will suffice to address the latter, and I hope that ArbCom provides some framework to address it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
What do "feuding and BLPs" have to do with one another? One of the main issues that most people seem to agree on at the RfC could be called "Cirt and BLPs," but given the suggestion above I find it difficult to understand what new case that will fall under. If there are interactional issues between Cirt and Jayen, aren't those best dealt with along with other "feuding" issues? In short I find the manner in which you have all broken this up utterly confusing. Could we get more of a statement on the rationale here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen466's claims of me participating in a rumour campaignn concerning him are utterly spurious - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe me to be a Scientologist, and have you ever commented to anyone one way or the other? --JN466 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2

That the Arbitration Committee create a publicly readable mailing list, provisionally called "arbcom-en-public", for case handling and case discussion purposes and that the use of the list be trialled for the above-cases.

Support:
  1. Worth a try. If it results in barracking, or attempts to pressure arbitrators, we can discontinue it,  Roger Davies talk 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Perhaps "arbcom-en-public", to be more consistent with current WMF list naming practices? Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, changed.  Roger Davies talk 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
  1. SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Comments on Motion 2

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This seems like a good thing to try. Most US deliberative bodies, from courts to school boards, have a similar setup where most deliberations are held in public session, and only those parts that have an absolute need are performed in a limited, closed executive session. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I believe that this would be a useful experimental step towards the openness that seems widely desired from the Arbcom talk page discussions. My only question would be whether this is better handled by mailing list or by on-wiki scheduling / disposition discussion page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree an arb-writable-only wiki page is probably a better long-term solution, but if the Arbs are willing to take the important step of opening up their deliberations to the public, let's not ruin it by arguing over bike shed colors... TotientDragooned (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=440009322"