Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:41, 19 August 2011

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions from Newyorkbrad to Cirt

What changes if any have you made to your editing patterns and methods since the incidents discussed in the evidence presented in this case?
A. I’ve made changes to my editing patterns, primarily through disengagement from contentious topics. However, I didn’t undertake to fully disengage from articles on those topics and retained involvement on FA/GA projects, and other articles related to those subjects. I realize this was a mistake, and I’ve now refocused my energies in other topics.
What specific commitments have you made regarding (e.g.) voluntary withdrawal from certain topic areas, when did you make those commitments, and to what extent have you kept them?
A. I’ve listed prior specific commitments I’ve made regarding voluntary withdrawal, stating that my intention was to reduce activity in those topics, and not withdraw from them completely. I faced criticism for continuing to edit on articles tangentially or obliquely related, and after a January 2011 statement responding to this, I shifted my focus to writing and creating unrelated articles. I don’t believe I’ve violated undertakings I’ve given before; more recently, I’ve made undertakings to completely withdraw from those topics, and have done so.

Prior statements on my editing

— Cirt (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newyorkbrad to Jayen466

Do any of Cirt's edits that you regard as seriously problematic post-date Cirt's commitments to withdraw from various topic areas?
A. Yes. See [1], [2]
See [3], [4].
See [5], [6].
According to Cla68, Cirt undertook last summer to refrain from editing Scientology BLPs, yet we had [7] a few months later.
Here, in January 2011, Cirt reverted the addition of sourced material as vandalism: [8] [9][10] [11] [12] [13].
Here, also in January 2011, Cirt argued that Melton is an unreliable source; the man writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Scientology, and Cirt had cited the exact same source himself before: [14], [15].
Slipping Werner Erhard onto the main page in February 2011: [16][17]. (If there is any doubt that Erhard forms part of the Scientology topic area, see [18], where Cirt proposes prosecuting alleged meatpuppets using the ARBSCI remedies.) --JN466 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of Cirt's edits that you regard as seriously problematic, in your view, violate the commitments he made?
A. Yes, unfortunately. Note [19].
See [20], from December 2008, where Cirt assured us: "I really have left behind the edit warrior I used to be two years ago". Yet this, two years later, is edit-warring/tag-teaming, in order to retain a BLP of a disfavoured politician in a coatrack state: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], Talk:Sharron_Angle/Archive_1#Scientology.
A similar pattern of reverts seems to have occurred in Knight and Day, in June 2010: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] and others, in order to retain an unjustified characterisation of the film as a box office bomb.
With the best will in the world, I do not see these actions as consistent with earlier undertakings. --JN466 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cbrick77 to Jayen466

Why did you decide not to take the advice of User:SlimVirgin on his comment (third to last) here on the administrator's noticeboard?
A. I did take SlimVirgin's advice and did not raise an RfC/U until one month later. In the course of that month, three things happened that changed both my and SlimVirgin's mind:
1. The first was this post by SlimVirgin on Cirt's talk page. Cirt had continued the behaviour he had promised her to curb, even while he was in conversation with her.
2. On 23 June, it transpired through an arbcom leak that Cirt had not been entirely frank to me (on-wiki) and SlimVirgin (off-wiki) concerning his reasons for creating the Corbin Fisher article. As featured in the main page DYK section, the article was highly promotional. Cirt had stated to me and SlimVirgin that he had come to the article "organically", through his interest in another article. He eventually conceded (when SlimVirgin told him that she already knew it) that he had created the article at the personal suggestion of the company's legal counsel, Marc Randazza, a noted free-speech lawyer.
3. The third was the "political activism" request for arbitration brought by User:Coren against Cirt. In his response to it, Cirt stated that he was currently assisting two family members in an acute health crisis and requested he be excused from participating in the case. He posted a further statement on 14 June saying that he would reduce his activity level in Wikipedia significantly. However, over the following two weeks, Cirt made 2,000 edits to Wikipedia. He attended to an FAC nomination he had initiated the previous week (June 6), and invited several editors to collaborate with him on new projects.
For whatever reason, Cirt's statements, both to SlimVirgin and the arbitration committee, looked at variance with his actions. Cirt said he wanted to move to a new topic area, free speech, that is also closely related to Werner Erhard, Scientology and other such groups. Without an effective acknowledgement of existing problems, similar advocacy problems seemed likely to recur in future. SlimVirgin endorsed the RfC/U, and posted a view of her own. --JN466 04:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe a mutual interaction ban between Cirt and you and having disputes resolved through a third party would be beneficial in resolving some of these issues raised in this case?
A. I am not averse to having Cirt respond to talk page threads I initiate through a third party, and likewise undertaking myself to respond to threads Cirt initiates through a third party. It might well serve to reduce friction. However, the underlying problem is the ongoing pattern of policy violations in this topic area. Without that, there would be no need for Cirt and me to converse at all. For background, I am a member of the new religious movements workgroup and have written its Manual of Style. Cirt is active in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scientology. Thus there is a natural overlap between our edit interests. I believe I am right in saying that it is very important to Cirt that Wikipedia contain ample information to warn the public about the risks of getting involved with Landmark, Scientology and other groups, and to point out the very real harm that has come to various individuals – members and non-members – as a result of these groups’ activities. I understand and support that. However, our coverage still has to be well sourced, neutral, and in line with BLP policy. It is this area where I have raised concerns. Even so, Cirt and I are not always on opposite sides in content disputes (examples: [53][54][55]) and are generally able civilly to negotiate agreement ([56][57][58][59]).
Looking back, Cirt and I seem to have interacted at three articles this year. Perhaps there were one or two more, but I am unable to recall or locate any others. Starting from the beginning of the year:
- Cirt responded to two talk page threads I initiated at Xenu (January).
- He responded to another talk page thread I initiated at Werner Erhard (February).
- We then met again at the talk page of Santorum (neologism) (June, see evidence).
These posts were about article content. Cirt would have been free not to respond to them, but for his strong involvement in these articles, which has often seen him in conflict with other editors than myself: [60][61][62][63][64][65]. Our interactions last year included:
- An AN/I thread I started (December). This led to arbitrator User:Elen of the Roads overturning, on appeal, an AE closure that forbade User:Delicious carbuncle from ever commenting about Cirt's editing again, as well as a warning to Cirt that a discretionary topic ban was contemplated. My sole intention here was to protect another editor from the harm of an improper AE closure.
- Another AN/I thread on Cirt at which I voiced concerns (November). Cirt sought to invalidate a newbie editor's voice in an AfD with an unjustified copyright violation and plagiarism charge, and by pointing out that the user had deleted related warnings from his talk page (eliding the fact that it was Cirt himself who had placed these warnings).
- Discussions at Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (November, see evidence for BLP concerns).
- Discussions at List of Scientologists and a related BLP/N thread I initiated (July, see evidence). Again, there were significant BLP concerns, with Cirt listing household names who aren’t and never were Scientologists as Scientologists. --JN466 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your answers were thorough and enlightening to say the least. If I may ask a followup question though. Your reason for why you and Cirt interact so much is because he frequently edits scientology and you are a memeber of the new religious movements workgroup and Cirt works in the Scientology Project. I like to solve things with minimal sanctions so do you think a simple interaction ban would be enough to solve the problem? My reasoning being that, unless it is obvious vandalism, the two of you could ask a third party on your respective projects to deal with problems you have with content or tone created by the other.
A. I have not edited the Scientology topic area much of late. Neither has Cirt, for that matter. Before the Dan Savage/Rick Santorum incident came along, we hadn't interacted for about three months, as far as I recall. --JN466 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun to think I was being simplistic in that last question and your response solidifies that. I retracted it because I no longer believe it's a good idea for a simple interaction ban (though I would support one to reduce the friction in addition to other arbitration).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrick77 (talk • contribs)

Questions from Cbrick77 to Cirt

Do you believe a mutual interaction ban between Jayen and you and having disputes resolved through a third party would be beneficial in resolving some of these issues raised in this case?
A. Yes. — Cirt (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what ways, if any, have you altered your interactions with Jayen?
A. I have tried to limit interactions – in multiple instances Jayen has showed up to a page where he was previously not involved, and I have subsequently chosen to disengage from that article or project. — Cirt (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Off2riorob

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Point of order: Is Off2riorob a party? Will Beback talk 02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WillBeback - yes your correct, I am not a party - I have moved to "others" - Thank you for pointing that out. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Similarly, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Standard. Attempts to exclude highly reputable scholars disfavoured by Cirt have been a constant theme. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of sourcing

3) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes information contained in the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content be verifiable and prohibiting original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There have been multiple such misuses and misleading uses, and consistently in favour of a point of view opposed to those disfavoured. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in editing

4) Editors are not expected to be perfect. It is completely understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake, such as construing a source in a fashion that other editors ascertain is incorrect, or making an edit that too clearly reflects a partisan point of view. However, when an editor's contributions reflect a consistent pattern of errors such as slanted edits or mis-cited sources and violations of policies and guidelines, the situation is far more serious. This is especially so when the tendency of the errors and violations is uniformly in the direction of a particular point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As above. The direction of misuses and misrepresentations has been uniform. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive and tendentious editing

5) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivities of subject-matter

6) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Wnt. Interestingly, I didn't think this created a special class of article at all. My take was that it advised editors to adhere closely to site policies particularly in hot button areas. This principle seems to me to suggest that some areas are likely to be more sensitive - and thus more controversial - than others and that therefore friction can be avoided by editing carefully and tactfully. That does not strike me as a particularly subversive/revolutionary thought. Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ RickK2. There is an interesting underlying issue here. It sometimes happens that the preponderance of RS - particularly news media which usually come with an editorial position on a subject - are broadly negative about a group. Now it may well be that in time other less negative RS will surface but, in the meantime, per policy, then surely the article should follow the sources, no? I'm thinking of the situation where yesterday's terrorist, sometimes becomes tomorrow's freedom fighter, as the context is reviewed with historical hindsight. Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Griswaldo. No, I meant what I said. Some organisations/individuals do exist in a hostile media environment, where the only coverage is negative. This has nothing to do with register and everything to do with the selection of the facts reported. When, for example, was the last time you read a heartwarming piece about Al-Qaeda? Roger Davies ^talk 19:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Griswaldo: I understand the point you are making but you missed the point that I was making. Roger Davies ^talk 07:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jayen: it's an issue to the extent that if there's nothing positive in reliable mainstream sources, people look elsewhere, in unreliable non-mainstream sources. This, in turn, leads to gaming and extensive arguments about every source; with spill over into the RS noticeboard, into articles about the sources, and into articles about the authors (as editors try to enhance or diminish the reputation of the subject). I'm not sure there's a simple solution to this, as the applicable guidelines are ferocious in their complexity. Roger Davies ^talk 07:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cla68. Quite, Roger Davies ^talk 09:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

A key point, especially with regard to the incest allegations against Erhard mentioned in evidence. Cirt could not reasonably have been unaware of the retractions; yet he disclaimed all knowledge of them, and the DYK ran without them. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: I don't see a problem with it if sources about a topic are generally negative. In any topic area, we simply strive to reflect sources' points of view in appropriate proportion, whether they take a dim or bright view of their subject. A negative article on Al-Qaeda that accurately reflects the pool of eligible, quality sources is fully in line with the principle of "neutral editing" and "scrupulous sourcing" spelled out above. The sources define what is "neutral" – in the Wikipedia meaning of the word, "neutral" can be negative. Problems arise if an editor omits information that reliable sources include, or writes excessively negative (or positive, for that matter) articles that depart from the pool of sources. If that happens regularly in an editor's work, we have a problem, and that is the case here. Here are some examples from the evidence:

The retraction of the Werner Erhard incest allegation was prominently mentioned in sources Cirt cited, and directly adjacent to a sentence he had used, yet Cirt excluded that information from the Wikipedia article. And he refused to remedy it when it was pointed out to him, until after the DYK had run. That isn't reflecting the negativity of sources, it's making BLP content more negative than the source, by withholding balancing information. No one demands that Cirt should have written a positive piece on Erhard, just that it should not have been more accusatory than what the sources wrote.

Source selection is another tell-tale sign:

Cirt included unreliable sources to bolster a particular point of view of Tom Cruise in Tom Cruise Purple, and Rick Santorum in the santorum article. Similarly, he embedded an unreliable, self-published source making allegations about living people in Mace-Kingsley Ranch School. Why not just stick with reliable, policy-compliant sources?
At the other end of the sourcing spectrum, i.e. sources that are unquestionably reliable by our standards, Cirt has offered staunch resistance to including the views of scholars in Wikipedia articles like Xenu, like the guy who writes Britannica's article on Scientology.
The DYK Cirt wrote on Scientology (James R. Lewis book), an Oxford University Press book, cited dismissive comments from Richard Ingrams (who actually confessed in his piece that he hadn't received a copy of the book yet), and a mocking review in Private Eye from someone who seems to have only dipped into it (besides being academically unqualified). At the same time, the article ignored a detailed 20-page review in a peer-reviewed journal from a Christian scholar who described the book as the most sophisticated item published on Scientology so far, and who correctly noted that the Church of Scientology would hate it, especially for its inclusion of a chapter on Xenu. In fact, Lewis was accused of "blasphemy" by the Church of Scientology after publication, and has expressed his belief that he has been declared a suppressive person by the Church. Yet Cirt's article presented him as some sort of Scientology propagandist. It was a complete disconnect from reality, and affects the reputation of a living person and scholar with a university job.
Cirt's DYK biography of Julia Moon didn't follow media coverage in top sources, which I found is broadly positive and congratulatory on her skills as a dancer, but cherry-picked dismissive statements.
Cirt's biography of Sharron Angle didn't follow the balance of sources either. Cirt made Scientology the overriding topic in her biography, a state of affairs he sought to maintain through edit-warring and warnings handed out to other editors, while in the real world, only a small proportion of published sources on the woman covered matters related to Scientology.
Cirt's biographies of Joel Anderson and Kenneth Dickson, on the other hand, glossed over significant controversies and other unflattering content that was readily available in dozens of reliable sources, up to and including the LA Times. Apart from these omissions, both biographies were written in such fulsome style that they were described as political advertisements even by multiple editors who were completely unaware of the controversies surrounding Anderson and Dickson (campaign finance violations in Anderson's case, and support for anti-gay hate speech in Dickson's).

WP:NPOV tells us that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". If reliable sources are negative, or positive, then our articles should be too, but no more and no less. The no more and no less is the problem here, along with the selection of sources. We shouldn't use unreliable sources, or embedded videos from YouTube, to give prominent exposure to viewpoints that are more extreme than those generally found in reliable sources. That applies to Al-Qaeda as much as to any other topic. Cheers, --JN466 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RickK2 is a blocked sock puppet account, and his content has been removed. I recommend editing your statement so that it does not rely on him in any way. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. --JN466 15:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. this is a good one to highlight. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This begins to place a mistaken emphasis on certain categories of editing. Looking at WP:Article probation, perhaps 14 of 33 articles that have risen to that level of contentiousness match these criteria. But many thousands of such topics have not, while 19 things not related to race, ethnicity or religion have. Therefore it is inappropriate to paint such issues with a broad brush. Instead Wikipedia should rely on the existing empirical measures to impose increased scrutiny - with fair warning - on specific articles as they become magnets for trouble. Wnt (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about Brad's thought experiment about the "Blue People", raised after the Noleander case, in that case the "Blue People" were the Jewish people. Here, instead, they are groups that some reliable and mainstream sources would, instead, characterize as "cults". Not the same thing at all. I'm very interested to see what the Arbs will end up making of this difference. Perhaps this is where the Noleander case cannot really be extrapolated, and instead, the ideas developed in the Climate Change case would apply better: content where there are mainstream and minority views, rather than reasonable and deplorable views. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jews = Righteous people who have been cruelly and unjustifiably persecuted, Members of new religious movements = Malefactors or brainwashed dupes" cannot stand as a sound principle upon which to decide arbitration cases. If WP:NPOV is to be adhered to, then editing which is biased against any religious group should be found deplorably offensive to policy. Articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", rather than editors' personal beliefs. Contributions such as [66] are totally untenable in terms of NPOV or RS, and could only be explained as editing premised on the belief that "cults" are so evil that warning the public of the dangers posed requires Wikipedia's content policies to be WP:IARed. The Noleander case reflects the principle that such prejudiced content submissions are not "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". RickK2 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

Two points: I trust it's clear to other people reading this that I did not characterize those groups of people in that way. And, at some point, the formulation about "any religious group" is going to run up against, not new religious movements, but religious terrorism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though not involved in this case, "religious terrorism" seems to be a particularly sensitive subject matter, as the community wouldn't be happy with Cirt's WP:RS violations on this topic either. Were Cirt using self-published videos to assert that Islam was responsible for the actions of Osama bin Laden, severe sanctions would have been imposed already. RickK2 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

The "Jew rule" is better POV evaluation tool I use. Would We let them get away with saying this about certain Jew or Judaism in General? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this entire thread originally. Tryptofish, I agree that you did not characterize these groups in exactly the manner RickK2 presented, but you did differentiate between them in a manner that says NRMs = bad, and Jews = good, to put it bluntly. As with most people at Wikipedia I am going to assume that your claim about "reliable and mainstream sources" calling NRMs "cults" stems from a lack of information. "Cult" is a particularly prickly word in the study of religion, and it is rarely used at this point by "reliable and mainstream sources." Also consider that what the people who go around bashing cults do is all too often fraught with irony. On one hand they hold up the cult member as a helpless victim of the deranged power lust and greed of the cult leader, yet on the other hand they don't pull any punches as they bludgeon away at these same victims, as long as they remain in the group. At the end of the day Tryptofish, NRM adherents, cult members and Jews are all people, and they all deserve equal amounts of respect from us as we edit this encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RickK2, ResidentAnthropologist, and Griswaldo, I strongly disagree with all three of you. Rick, if there is no evidence of Cirt making edits that say that religious terrorists were representative of their religions, then it is inappropriate to make innuendo to that effect here. RA, it is insulting to Jewish people to equate them, say, to the people at Jonestown. Griswaldo, I emphatically did not make the kind of good/bad characterization to which you refer, and I request that you retract it. What I really said, visible just above and separate from any emotion-laden misframing, is that the Noleander case set a precedent in which groups of people such as the Jewish people (in the specific instant) should be treated as, in effect, sensitive subject matter (using the title of this discussion thread). I pointed out—and I still point out—that it is potentially useful here to look also at the Climate Change case where, instead, the distinction was between majority and minority viewpoints. Of course all people are people. Duh. What I am saying is that, if we extend the concept of "Blue People" to all people, we come eventually to the point where we cannot, for example, report that Islamic terrorists did bad things, because they, in this instance, would be the "Blue People". With respect to NRM, who are indeed not anything like terrorists, but rather somewhere in between the Jewish people and the extremes, Wikipedia is better served by treating them in an NPOV way, with proper balance between majority and minority views that are expressed in secondary sources—instead of treating NRM adherents as people about whom Wikipedia must not present critical information, as though criticisms of NRM are the exact same thing as antisemitic canards. That's a thoughtful and encyclopedic distinction. To caricature it as some sort of bigotry against NRM, as some of the comments here have done, does us all a disservice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a caricature to say that you are claiming that NRMs are de facto worse than the Jewish people. These are your more recent words -- With respect to NRM, who are indeed not anything like terrorists, but rather somewhere in between the Jewish people and the extremes. Somewhere in between terrorists and Jews? So more like terrorists than Jews are, hence worse than Jews. BTW you are repeating a problem that was inherent in Brad's own reasoning at the time, and was pointed out to him by myself and others even back then. And did you really say that it is insulting to Jews to be equated with the followers of Jim Jones, as if those poor people who killed themselves in Guiana are lesser people because they were fooled into believing the claims of a madman? I will gladly agree with you that Jim Jones was more like a terrorist than Jews are, or Christians, or Muslims, but the disconnect you're having is the same one I mentioned above ("fraught with irony"). Jim Jones's followers were not him. Indeed they were his victims, and the only horrors most of them brought onto the world they brought onto themselves, not onto others. The problem with editing like Cirt's is that he brutalizes the biographies of people who belong to Scientology (or people who associated with it) as if individual members should pay for the evils of the organization (evils which, again, ironically they are the victims of). He then seems to reward those who have left by puffing up their biographies, or the articles on their non-notable restaurants. This kind of collateral damage, in his POV crusade against Scientology should be completely unacceptable to us. When it comes to our editing of biographies we are all Blue People. Sorry but nothing less is acceptable.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Somewhere in between" with respect to how Wikipedia should write about them, not in terms of their worth as human beings. I'll trust the Arbs to sort out what they think of this, because it clearly is doing no good for me to discuss it with you any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the vehemence of my reaction, it's just that the type of logic that allows for this kind of argument is one that I am rather vehemently opposed to. When people say things like "I'm sure group X wouldn't like to be equated with group Y" it implies something much deeper about these groups than simply "how Wikipedia should write about them." I'm happy to end this conversation as I've made my point, perhaps with a tinge of hyperbole, but made it either way. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger (RE: comments directed to RickK2) There is something fundamentally wrong about your comment regarding "negative" and "positive" sources here, because we should not be "following" the tone or POV of any source, we should be using the facts presented in them. Will a biased source present only some facts and not others. Surely, and if what you meant was that if there is systemic bias in reliable sources then our policies are such that we'll reflect that bias then I agree, but that isn't how you phrased it. It is also worthy of note here that some sources are more and less reliable in different contexts. As I pointed out to Tryptofish on his talk page when it comes to cults and NRMs there is a fairly well established split between how the popular press handles them and how scholars do. To rely mainly on the news media when covering these groups, as opposed to scholarship, is to engage a type of source with a known bias. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger. As I said I understand the issue of the one sided selection of facts by sources and its implications on editing given what our policies say. We can only work with what we are given. Yet there are still a couple of problems with what is implied by your comment. 1) As I already pointed out, there is no reason to rely mainly on sources that treat the subject as hostile when other, arguably better, sources exist which treat it in a more neutral fashion. Relying on higher quality sources which do not suffer from the same amount of bias when they exist is, of course, also in line with policy. 2) In terms of negative slants you pointed to particularly news media which usually come with an editorial position on a subject. We are also expected to exercise editorial discretion here on Wikipedia when we write articles. We do not simply parrot what the news media says word for word. If we did we'd constantly run afowl of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc. In other words, every time we have one source or twenty to use in an article we have to run the "facts" presented to us through our own editorial process, shaped by our various content policies. So at the end of the day, we can't simply sit back and say, well the news media has a negative bias when they discuss X group, so there is nothing we can do about it. Your replies trouble me in general, but also in terms of this case specifically, because they suggest that what others consider BLP violations you may be willing to write off as an accurate reflection of the general bias of the news media. I contend that you have that backwards entirely.Griswaldo (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger, the sources issue is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses, as I detailed in essay I posted off-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Jehochman wants to unhat this he's welcome to but otherwise I don't think it serves any productive purpose

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

Iswaldo, are you affiliated with any "cults"? Your tenacity in this issue, and the spurious argumentation you add to Wikipedia's discussions creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hochman it humors me how editors such as yourself have been trying to claim that Cirt is the object of a witch-hunt, because it appears that you are yourself looking for witches to brand at every turn. No, Hochman I'm not, nor have ever been, a member of a cult (either religious, political or of the self-help variety). If you need to know for your witch finding session I'm also completely irreligious. By the way, outside of my comments here where do you see my "tenacity" in this issue? Those arguments are not spurious, btw. My relationship to the subject matter is tangential but it is also academic - from the sociology of religion specifically. Anyone who is intimately familiar with the sociology of religion in the United States knows the basics of NRM research, and the popular perception of cults. Do you have more veiled accusations to cast around?Griswaldo (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way my username is Griswaldo. You can add this to your file on me. It is a combination of "Griswold" (as in the surname of the family in the National Lamboon's vacation films, which I am a huge fan of) and Waldo (as in that strange looking skinny guy who is constantly missing).Griswaldo (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, park's closed! (See my talk page for continuation of this tangent.) Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and prejudice

7) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Re Jayen466's comment, this and the next couple of paragraphs aren't actually "standard" in the sense of repeatedly used in committee decisions; they were new language (though hopefully not new community expectations) when I drafted them for the Noleander case. That doesn't mean they aren't also relevant here too, of course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This principle, I think, is more about the best approach to editing/consensus than anything else. In crude terms, I suppose it's the difference between saying "XXX is the public relations consultant for Blue People, it's his job to portray them in the best possible light" and "YYY and ZZZ are Blue People and you'd expect them to blindly defend Blue People, no matter how disgusting their actions, because everyone knows Blue People have no moral compass". Roger Davies ^talk 12:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This principle was a mistake the first time, but here the error is clearer. By adopting this principle, ArbCom would take sides with Scientology against its opponents. Limited only by the existing generic soapboxing and NPOV requirements, Scientology followers would be free to detail all of the purported benefits of their "faith", while its opponents would each be limited to a lifetime quota of factual criticism which they might add to be reverted. The result would be articles which would be misleading, and perhaps actually dangerous, to the general public relying on Wikipedia for factual background. People on Wikipedia should have equal freedom to add information that is positive or negative about a religion or cult - this is the essence of NPOV, one of Wikipedia's core principles. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's being extremely hyberbolic. We can create critical article without engaging in demagoguery or polemics. What we can certainly do without is the creation of article that violate core policies. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with my comment just above, I'm not really convinced that the Noleander decision, about bias and prejudice, applies here – as opposed to the Climate Change decision, about majority and minority POVs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies for biased editing

8) Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is very difficult one to call. If an editor focuses for many years on articles negative to Blue People (for instance, convicted mobster or rapist Blue People or scandals involving Blue People) - but not on articles discussing say the richness or diversity of Blue People culture, or the positive contributions Blue People have made say to science and technology - you do eventually have to wonder where they're coming from. To my mind, the window into the soul here comes from looking at the big picture and not the minutiae. Roger Davies ^talk 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. we observe and possibly sanction actions not motivations. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This principle incorporates and builds upon the above errors. It would give members of Scientology (but not, say, homosexuals or fat people) the right to simply "shout down" editors, regardless of the appropriateness of the edits. ArbCom did not need to do this in the Noleander case, where it was perfectly capable of finding actual inappropriate editing rather than the perceptions of it. In this case it would not merely be technically wrong but would lead to inappropriate sanctions against Cirt. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wnt. There is nothing wrong with people who hate Jews, Scientologists, fat people, acupuncture editing in those areas and adding mostly negative content, provided they are creating neutral articles. If they're told by the arbcom their work is producing biased articles, and they continue, they should be topic- or site banned. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction should be made between systematic bias created by choice of topics, and violating NPOV on the topics chosen. If editors were sanctioned merely for contributing to systematic bias, there wouldn't be many left. Creating NPOV problems in particular articles, however, isn't acceptable. RickK2 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

References to fellow editors

9) Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a good principle, but I do not see where it applies to conduct in evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) The principal issue in this case concerns editing by Cirt (talk · contribs). Cirt’s editing has been the subject of several recent arbitration enforcement threads and a recent Request for arbitration by User:Coren. These culminated in a divisive RfC/U on June 27 2011. Because this discussion failed to reach a consensus, the allegations were extremely serious, the disagreement was polarizing the community, and other methods of dispute resolution did not appear likely to resolve the matter, the Arbitration Committee accepted the case for arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Accurate. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The focus by others on Jayen466 is misplaced. He's just been the most dogged about Cirt, who was not either a SPA in one topic area, or a banned user. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is false as written according to the scope of the case. To quote: "The purpose of this case is to examine the conduct of each party...as well as any interpersonal conduct issues arising between the two parties. Submitted evidence should focus solely on the conduct of Cirt and Jayen466." The principle issue of this case is the editing and conduct of both Cirt and Jayen466. I suggest this finding of fact be edited to reflect the scope of the case. Chris (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole focus of the dispute between User:Cirt and User:Jayen is User:Cirt's serious and prolonged policy violations as laid out on the evidence page. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While User:Cirt's pattern of editting is troubling and unbecoming of an administrator, there is more than simply his policy violations. As brought up in on an earlier disputehere, it seems that User:Jayen466 has an editing pattern with Cirt that is more than just coincidental. Their interpersonal reltions have also been less than friendly. I'm not saying Cirt doesn't need to be held accountable, but I've noticed that the rest of the scope--namely the interpersonal relations between the two parties--is lacking and should be addressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrick77 (talk • contribs)

This may be so, but no evidence has been submitted in the evidence section regarding Jayen666 or his interactions with Cirt. - BorisG (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll see if I can find any examples of their conduct with each other and if I find anything I'll post it there. Chris (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing User:Cbrick's has added evidence regarding the interpersonal relations issues between User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 would the user present some addition to this focus of the dispute? ( which I would have no objection to integrating here ) or is it preferable to create a separate section? Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll draft a full proposal because there are other parts of this proposal that I think could be bettered. Chris (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you may well be correct, these are my first contributions to a Wikipedia arbitration case. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like Chris' version below (with some copyediting etc.) would be more accurate than this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying area of conflict

2) The underlying area of conflict is belief systems/new age religions/cults and associated articles like Scientology, Werner Erhard/Landmark Education, the Unification Church and politicians and other individuals linked to these belief systems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. It's useful to keep this one in mind when evaluating the extent of the proposed remedies. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirt

3) A substantial focus of User:Cirt's editing has been articles relating generally to Scientology, Werner Erhard/Landmark Education, the Unification Church. The articles have ranged over a wide range of topics, ranging from lists of prominent members, books about the movements and members, lawsuits involving them, and many others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Articles about the groups' beliefs and their critics could be added; these have at times been poorly sourced, and almost always depart from NPOV, being either excessively positive (critics) or excessively negative. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt's editing

4) User:Cirt's contributions to Wikipedia concerning these movements and individual members of these movements can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views. There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individuals and movements in an unfavorable or mocking fashion. For example, Cirt's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on the subjects of the article. Similarly, sources are often used appropriately, but when they are misused, it is typically in a fashion that treats them as negatively as possible. Cirt has used poor sources in doing so.

Politicians and other individuals opposed to these movements have been described as positively as possible, while others linked to these movements have been described as negatively as possible. Cirt has several times begun working on biographies of politicians or a related article shortly after they declared their intention to run for office or prior to an upcoming election.

This finding does not rely on any single edit or group of edits, or even any single article or group of articles, but on considering User:Cirt's body of contributions taken as a whole. This finding reflects Cirt's editing on Wikipedia, not of his intentions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. Non-neutral editing of politicians' bios in the run-up to elections has been a problem. The proposed remedy needs some copyediting -- the politicians favoured were not necessarily opposed to the groups concerned, but they were opposing another candidate believed by Anonymous to be too friendly to these groups. Negative coatracks were written on politicians like Sharron Angle and Santorum who are believed to be "in bed" with Scientology, or the Unification Church. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes. We have no idea of Cirt's actual mindset, only the results of actions taken in editing the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, while Cirt's lack of respect for BLP was apparent two years ago[67], arbcom refused to act on the legitimate concerns raised. Even though plenty of evidence was available[68], arbitrators decided to invoke WP:OSTRICH. RickK2 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

Proposed remedies

User:Cirt is banned from editing WP:BLP articles about members of new religious movements (broadly construed)

1) That due to User:Cirt's serious and repeated violations of Wikipedia policies over a lengthy period of time (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) in WP:BLP articles about members of new religious movements, User:Cirt is banned from editing such articles. (broadly defined to include living people tangentially connected to a NRM}

Comment by Arbitrators:

I won't comment yet on any other aspects of the case (because the evidence isn't submitted and the parties haven't had a chance to respond to my questions, among other reasons), but I would find use of the undefined term "cult" in a finding or remedy somewhat problematic. Please suggest alternate wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, as the problems seem to be recurring with systematic regularity and some of the BLP violations have been severe. This should not just extend to BLPs; the most significant BLP issues for example (linking to a self-published YouTube video asking viewers to take action against a named and presumably living individual alleged to be a likely sex offender, and prominent mention of incest allegations without mentioning that they were later retracted) occurred in Mace-Kingsley Ranch School and Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per NYB's comment I have altered the proposed remedy from "cults" to "new religious movements." Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we drop the BLP and Members part and just say that Cirt is banned from edditing articles related to New Religious Movements. I see it as a loop hole Cirt could exploit that could jeapordize the quality of articles about dead members as well as articles on NRM that aren't BLP's. Chris (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I formed the statement like this because it is specifically in relation to living members of NRM that evidence of policy violations have been presented in the RFC user and on the evidence page here. Any editing restriction should not encroach on areas the User has not violated policy in, so as to allow a quality content creator to still contribute in as broad an area as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support something like this. I think the evidence is substantial that BLPs, in particular, will require a topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One objection, which is more or less one of definition. Most of the so-called NRMs are comparatively new. That being the case, it could be said that most of the articles relating to NRMs involved BLP, broadly construed. If one were to want to say that Cirt would be banned from all articles related to NRMs, broadly construed, that might be a bit of a clearer statement and easier to interpret and enforce. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's why there has been push most notably by individuals within AAR to drop the term"New Religious movements." The term was coined to compliment New social movements and has little to do with the "Newness" of many of the movements that rapidly spread in the United States after 1965. The term reflects a misconception that sociologists had when exploring these movement in the 70s. They believed that these movement were "different" from previously observed phenomenon and they were to a degree. The Unification Church for example was very different from the Catholic Worker Movement that sociologist had previously documented and called a "religious movement." Thus the "New" part was made to differentiate various groups from the "traditional" religious movement pattern. It really has nothing to do with whether the movement itself was "new." This really ought to be in every NRM 101 text book but it often gets lost among advanced . This why I chose to use the more common "New and Alternative Religions" in my scope proposal. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirt is banned from editing WP:BLP articles of politicians (broadly construed)

2) That due to User:Cirt's serious and repeated violations of Wikipedia policies over a lengthy period of time (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) in WP:BLP articles of politicians, User:Cirt is banned from editing such articles.(broadly defined to include related BLP content in non biographical articles, such as Campaign for "santorum" neologism}

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure how I feel about treating politicians as a protected class—wait, yes I do: I think it's a bad idea. I disagree with Tryptofish and TRA. The religious BLPs involved suggest that this may in fact be too narrow, although I'm not sure an outright ban is appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 18:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes. Wikipedia must not remain a vehicle for this type of editing. It should be strongly discouraged. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Agreed. I believe that is the intent of the proposed remedy; it refers to biographies of living people. --JN466 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be emphasized here that what is being proposed is a ban on writing BLPs on politicians. Knowing as we all do that Cirt is one of the most brilliant and talented content-creators at WP (whether or not we agree with his focus or his every action), I can't help but hope that he takes up writing historical political biographies. There is a great need for work in this area. The topic ban needs to be more narrowly defined so that room is left for him to work. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this sanction. The Great Santorum Debate was attended by many dozens if not hundreds of editors besides Cirt and JN466. In the end we kept this article. Most of the conflict between Cirt and JN466 seems to have to do with this cult stuff; even if you believe something from that blunderbuss of charges, why hit him with an irrelevant prohibition about politicians in general? It will be very easy for his detractors to argue that any topic at all has something to do with politics, therefore politicians, therefore he must be sanctioned - they'll be back here time and again if you order this. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Wnt. If one actually looks at the content of the changes Cirt made to the Santorum (neologism) piece, one will note that he improved the content and sourcing of the article — a piece which is encyclopedia-worthy and will survive a challenge at AfD (the last one was arbitrarily terminated pending the outcome of this Arbcom case). Cirt has an agenda on new religious movements, but then again, I would argue so do many of his opponents. The key thing is that Cirt is an extraordinarily talented content-creator and a just AfD arbiter, and whatever sanctions, if any, result from this dredging up of several years worth of often times petty editorial complaints against him should be minimized. A ban from writing all political BLPs is overly broad. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This goes too broadly, per the actual evidence. It only needs to apply to politicians who are associated with the subjects in the proposed topic ban immediately above. There's no reason to include other politicians. Likewise, the proposal directly above need not be framed as applying only to "members of" those groups. In some cases, there have been BLP subjects whose actual membership has been disputed (I think). I'll suggest below that these remedies be consolidated into a single topic ban on BLPs of persons associated with these groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too broad my alternative below more effectively cuts to the Politician issue such as in the Dixon case. We do need some sort of finding on the Santorum issue and perhaps a remedy. This blanket remedy fails to prevent anything and would be punitive. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirt is desysopped

3) That due to User:Cirt's serious and repeated violations of Wikipedia policies over a lengthy period of time (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) User:Cirt's standards of policy compliance and neutrality have fallen below the standards expected of users with advanced permissions and User:Cirt is desysopped of his WP:Admin status. Any request for re-sysopping would be via the community through the usual process of WP:RFA

Comment by Arbitrators:

To clarify, is this a sort of "conduct unbecoming" desysop proposal? Although we have removed Functionaries for this reason, such desysops have been rare and controversial to date. Cool Hand Luke 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I believe, along with DGG, that this type of editing, in particular the BLPSPS violations, misrepresentation of sources and editing of politicians' bios, is a breach of trust. Most of the politicians' bios were only discovered after the relevant elections were over. Re Rocksanddirt's suggestion below, an important point to note is that Cirt would be an extremely unsuitable admin to handle AE matters even tangentially related to the topic areas concerned here. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tougher call. I would rather see Cirt spend the entire time this case/cases are open doing arbitration enforcement. The admins there always need more help with the challenges associated with contentious areas. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JNN466 - That's one reason to do it. It's not a quiet corner working against POV pushing nutters, it's an actively watched page that needs admins to review and discuss and take action. If Cirt is unable to perform collaboratively with others there, that might be an important item to review as far as admin suitability. My gut reaction is that Cirt can do it and do fine at it. The challenge is Cirt doing fine at the quiet margins. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purported policy violations are fairly minor. Who else has been de-sysopped for regular editing that didn't involve admin tools and didn't result in a block? This seems so disproportionate as to call into question Off2riorob's judgment and perspective. Will Beback talk 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. There is no evidence of the misuse of tools. - BorisG (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. I have not seen any evidence presented that Cirt has abused administrative tools. I believe him to be one of the two or three finest, most honest and reliable closing administrators at AfD. This seems clearly a punitive effort which has no logical relationship to the charges against him. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support. The alleged editing problems, if true, represent (at the very least) a serious misunderstanding of key WP policies. Although we don't have a mandatory review / recall standard or procedure for admins, I think it's proper to note that a candidate who exhibited issues like these during an RfA would almost certainly not pass today. I see no real problem with someone in this situation continuing to do tasks like closing AfD's, where admins are clearly limited to implementing an already-established consensus. I am less enthusiastic about such a person doing AE, because (as I understand the process) a certain amount of judgment is required in order to decide whether a given request meets the criteria, and an editor with problems such as those under discussion might not be trusted to have that kind of judgment. I definitely would not want someone with trouble distinguishing good-faith content disagreements from disruptive editing giving out blocks for edit warring. Assuming the issues being brought up against Cirt are supported, I would be OK with her keeping the mop if (and only if) she is allowed to use it only within carefully circumscribed bounds. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly opposed. Where there is no abuse of the tools, desysopping should occur only in instances of gross and egregious abuse of community trust. Cirt is hardly the first admin to edit from a POV on a particular subject. He would, unless I'm mistaken, be the first to have his bit twiddled for actions that had nothing to do with adminship. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to my earlier comment: If (and obviously only if) ArbCom decides that Cirt should be banned from editing certain types of articles, it seems reasonable to me that said ban should include a ban on Cirt exercising admin functions in connection with articles she is not permitted to edit. Perhaps a limitation like this will suffice to address people's concerns without needing to take the admittedly drastic step of desysopping. And, clearly, anything like this should happen only if it is decided that Cirt's behaviour has in fact been such as to warrant any remedies at all. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales, this is not an issue, since he cannot (and does not) take administrative action on any topic where he is involved, and he is unlikely to be restricted from editing article space in a topic where he is uninvolved. - BorisG (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. It seems to me that while Cirt's edits as cited in evidence are suspect to say the least, he should not be desysopped for it. After reviewing the links given by Jayen and Off2riorob I noticed that a lot weren't too bad in breaking policy. Some were bad though (e.g. the youtube videos) and as a trend these actions are not something befitting an Admin. There is no evidence of misused admin tools and from my cursory look of his history it seems like he uses them very well, especially in closing AfDs. I think that the sanctions proposed except for this are sufficient to prevent this disagreement from arising again. Chris (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this too. It is simply not supported by the evidence. Overkill. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been debating this in my head for months on whether this is an appropriate measure. Cirt has never to my knowledge or even been accused of misusing the tools at all. The one problem is it keeps coming back to this:

a) The Admin core is entrusted by the community to uphold project polices especially BLP.

b) There seems consensus early in this Workshop session to topic ban Cirt from at least Scientology related BLPs.

c) Does it make sense to have Admin who are charged with upholding BLP have in their ranks an Admin under BLP restrictions?

I don't know what proper solution is here. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to have that scenario I just outlined in place at the end of this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that RA brings up a fascinating question, even though, at the end, it still leaves me opposed to this proposed remedy or anything like it. (Quibble: I don't think that admins are charged with a special role with respect to BLP. BLP is, of course, especially important for all editors, admin and non-admin alike, to uphold, but many admin tools are not particularly related to BLP enforcement.) But I understand why RA says that, about a bad taste. ArbCom should not desysop Cirt here. Cirt uses admin tools actively, and this use is a clear net-positive, non-controversial and largely unrelated to BLP. If ArbCom were to desysop in conjunction with a topic ban, the only logical conclusion would be to also desysop every other admin who has ever been sanctioned for anything. That would be reaching too far. And yet—RA's comment exemplifies with remarkable clarity the fact that ArbCom, and Wikipedia generally, does not have a good way to evaluate whether an administrator who has not literally misused the tools has, nonetheless, lost the community's trust. That's the issue: the trust of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of BLPs, abuse of innocent editors trying to restore NPOV. Desysopping is appropriate. I've only read biased, poorly-written shit from him – but I'll believe others that he can do readable work. If so, without the mop he'll have more time to spend on content, but mainly it will send a message to him and others who seem to think his behaviour is no big deal. His treatment of neutral newbies alone is enough to justify desysopping. Honestly, we are community; it is our job to insist on proper behaviour, and it is unreasonable, at this stage, to expect that will just materialise, after years of active support for his behaviour from the admin corps, and not the slightest hint from him that there may be a problem with the way he treats newbies and BLPs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~This should have been done years ago[69]. Well, better late than never. RickK2 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

Qualified support. If the underlying allegations are correct (I have no opinion one way or the other), Cirt should be desysopped. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion: per WP:NOTPERFECT, I'd recommend that the following language be incorporated in this finding: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status." (Previous caveats apply.) ScottyBerg (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further related violations

User:Cirt is reminded that when editing new topic areas he is expected to edit within WP:Policy and guidelines at all times - this is especially the case in regard to highly experienced WP:Users, holding advanced permissions such as WP:Admin. If similar policy violations occur (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) theArbitration committee will consider a motion for a project wide ban, starting with one month for a first violation, then three months for a second violation and six months for a third.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminded is enough. Threats of sanctions are unnecessary. - BorisG (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-starter; WP:IAR allows editors to not follow policies/guidelined (with good reasons, and with mutual consent between the active editors, of course). The proposed restriction would force Cirt (and by implication all Wikipedians), to stick to some strict interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP that they may not feel is appropriate when they are editing.

If other editors later see that some articles have been editited in a way that they think is not consistent with their editing philosophy, they can fix the problem as they think is appropriate; they should WP:AGF about the intention of the original editor(s), agree to disagree about possible disagreements about editing philosophy and settle any current editing disputes on the basis of consensus. They should not purge the original editor(s) from Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the threats of sanctions to assert the seriousness of the policy violations to User:Cirt and that any continuation of similar editing violation patterns would be treated equally seriously, personally after such a lengthy period of violating and after repeated failed promises and removals from one topic area to continue on violating in the next I think enough is enough and the user is so involved in attacking members of NRM especially Scientologists in any way possible using the project that the threat of extended sanctions is required. Off2riorob (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of this section is overly aggressive in tone. No need for threats here. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not aggressive at all, the keyboard is a poor modus for expression of emotions. We give warnings all the time here for editing violations, especially for repeated violations of core policy over periods of years without end. I see this as a last warning type of statement, a, this is what will happen to you if you continue to violate core policy. A user that has violated policy for so long requires such clear cause and effect type statements.Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a useful purpose for this section. There's such a thing as WP:AE, isn't there? So why make a redundant section with vague exhortations and threats? It just sounds like something to lord over him, as a matter of ego. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There does need to be some sort of "Cirt is reminded" remedy, but this needs some work. The focus should be on the type of evidence raised about IP editors and newer editors such as Njsustain. Cirt should be reminded to make more use of WP:BRD and not to mislabel good faith edits as vandalism. Such reminders inherently set the stage for sanctions if they are disregarded, so specific threats are not needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this as written. Given the free pass he's had up until now, I think prescribed sanctions are necessary. Frankly, I don't trust his mates to give him anything more than the occasional tsk tsk if/when he just continues as he's always done on topics he's passionate about. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed. Cirt's supporters have been defending him against richly deserved sanctions for years[70]. RickK2 (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

Proposals by User:Cbrick77

Purpose of Wikipedia

Unchanged

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) The principal issues in this case concern editing by Cirt (talk · contribs) as well as the interactions between Cirt (talk · contribs) and Jayen466 (talk · contribs). Cirt’s editing has been the subject of several recent arbitration enforcement threads and a recent Request for arbitration by User:Coren. Jayen466's editing in regard to Cirt has been subject to recent arbitration[71].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A good start. If I may suggest a couple of corrections and improvements: The number of AE threads involving Cirt was four: [72], [73], [74], [75]. The third of these resulted in a warning to Cirt that a discretionary topic ban was contemplated for Scientology. Relevant issues with Cirt's conduct were discussed in at least four AN/I threads over the past year: [76], [77], [78], [79]. There was also a typo in "editng", which I've fixed, and the last thread linked to was not an arbitration case, but another AN/I thread (at which Cirt's conduct was also discussed). Cheers, --JN466 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Chris (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too wordy for a focus. - BorisG (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this revision better? Chris (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. - BorisG (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the dispute

2) Cirt’s editing has been the subject of several recent arbitration enforcement threads and a recent Request for arbitration by User:Coren. These culminated in a divisive RfC/U on June 27 2011. Because this discussion failed to reach a consensus, the allegations were extremely serious, the disagreement was polarizing the community, and other methods of dispute resolution did not appear likely to resolve the matter, the Arbitration Committee accepted the case for arbitration. As shown by the evidence, Jayen466 has made assumptions of bad faith of Cirt, and, along with Cirt, has caused a hostile editing environment. This led to an AN/I discussion about Jayen466's conduct in reference to Cirt, the accusation specifically being Wikihounding [80]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposed per BorisG's comment above. Chris (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rest unchanged

Proposed remedies

User:Cirt is banned from editing WP:BLP articles about members of new religious movements (broadly construed)

Unchanged

User:Cirt is banned from editing WP:BLP articles of politicians (broadly construed)

unchanged

User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 are subject to a ban on interaction

3) As outlined on the evidence page, the parties' interactions with each other have been heated. To prevent the friction between the parties from causing a hostile editing environment as well as prevent future conflicts, the following is imposed:

User:Jayen466 is banned from reverting edits made by User:Cirt
User:Cirt is banned from reverting edits made by User:Jayen466
User:Jayen466 is banned from responding to talk page posts made by User:Cirt
User:Cirt is banned from responding to talk page posts made by User:Jayen466
User:Jayen466 is banned from making edits to the user page or user talk page of User:Cirt
User:Cirt is banned from making edits to the user page or user talk page of User:Jayen466

Both parties are reminded that they may contact another editor to make comments and revisions to pages on their behalf.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would welcome that. I have made enquiries with a couple of admins I respect and trust to see if they would be prepared to represent my concerns in the event that I come across any egregious issues. --JN466 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should perhaps add that neither party should be allowed to make on-wiki comments about the other. I have felt more than a little harassed myself by Cirt's repeated accusations of Wikihounding whenever I have pointed out in good faith what I perceived to be genuine and serious policy violations. --JN466 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Chris (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mutual interaction ban will likely reduce tension and disputes and seems reasonable considering the concerns raised, although imo the primary issue here is User:Cirt's repeated and serious violations of policy and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, without those violations there would be no need or reason for an interaction ban. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I also think of edits Cirt could make within the terms set forth. If s/he sees something in an off limits topic, s/he can request an Admin to edit it for him. If Jayen doesn't like it, s/he takes it to a talk page or gets into an edit war. Also, what if Cirt sees an edit by Jayen that s/he doesn't like; s/he could take it to Jayen's talk page. I would like to think this would be the end of it, and I see this as a way of taking safeguards so that it doesn't. Chris (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen: Do you like this edit:

7. User:Jayen466 is banned from making comments about User:Cirt (broadly defined) on-wiki except to seek editorial intervention.

8. User:Cirt is banned from making comments about User:Jayen466 (broadly defined) on-wiki except to seek editorial intervention.

I like the idea, but I want to make sure you are allowed to still express grievances through appropriate channels. Chris (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The details need to be nailed down thoroughly, and I'm not sure it would work anyway (or at least, not for Cirt). The anti-Cirt faction has displayed some of the very finest gamesmanship on Wikipedia. For example, they arranged to full-protect santorum (neologism) a few days at a time until the brown splatter fair use image was deleted as "not in use". They were ready to move the article and delete the redirect in order to break incoming links and lower its Google ranking. They've drowned Cirt (again) in chaff so that whatever relevant charge(s) they've made will escape significant disputation until they're acted upon. I don't think they will have any trouble at all ensuring that Cirt's edits are instantly reverted and his talk page arguments countered by someone besides JN466. But I don't think Cirt's defenders are connected to him in the same way; our concern is more in making sure that things like the santorum article aren't chopped out of the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of an interaction ban. Some details do need to be nailed down. I think it may come down to an interaction ban, with an exception only for responding in a limited way to dispute resolution initiated by others. For Jayen, I actually think that this would be a blessing in disguise. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both, Tryptofish and Wnt, I feel it could work if it's nailed down and I am open to suggestions so if you have any ideas for specific things you want address feel free to say them. I feel like the reason the anti-Cirt people are so aggressive is how controversial the pages of his edits are. Those against him take it as a religious, moral, or personal attack (and it may very well be) while those on Cirt's side simply want to include articles and see to it that Cirt's edits get added (as long as they follow policy). @Tryptofish, would you like things along this line:

User:Foo may respond to content issues of edits by User:Bar, if any administrator believes a comment to be an Ad hominem attack or an assumption made in bad faith, they may block the user for a period no longer than 24 hours.

Any other suggestions to help make this section better? Chris (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you directed the question to me, I'd have to say no, that wouldn't help. I think it probably comes down to saying that there is an interaction ban between Cirt and Jayen, with exceptions only for responding in a limited way to dispute resolution initiated by others. Real short. I also think the Arbs have enough experience drafting these kinds of things that I would trust them to figure out the exact wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further related violations

4) User:Cirt is reminded that when editing new topic areas he is expected to edit within WP:Policy and guidelines at all times - this is especially the case in regard to highly experienced WP:Users, holding advanced permissions such as WP:Admin. If similar policy violations occur (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) theArbitration committee may consider a motion for a project wide ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Chris (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirt is not Desysoped

Comment by Arbitrators:

Uh. What RA said. Cool Hand Luke 18:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I wasn't sure if I was clear in my proposal as to my feelings about User:Off2riorob's desysop proposal. I'm against it as there was no abuse of admin tools and wanted to make sure that I was explicit with that. Proposed Chris (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt not being Desysoped is the default scenario. So what does this proposal do other than state the default and to stand in contrast to Rob's suggestion? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Breach of Interaction ban

1) Any administrator who witnesses a breach of Proposed remedies section 3 must post a warning on the offending party's talk page. If the party breaches section 3 withing 30 days of the last warning, they may, at the blocking administrator's discretion, be subject to a project wide block for no more than three days (72 hours).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Chris (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of any ban by User:Cirt other than interaction ban

2) If Cirt violates his topic ban, an administrator must warn Cirt on his user talk page. For any subsequent violation, an administrator must impose a project wide ban for at least 24 hours. Bans may only be longer than one month for violations made within one 30 days of each other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Chris (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Tryptofish

Proposed remedies

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

User:Cirt is banned from editing WP:BLP articles about persons who have been associated with new religious movements (broadly construed).

1) That due to User:Cirt's serious and repeated violations of Wikipedia policies over a lengthy period of time (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP) in WP:BLP articles about persons who have been linked to new religious movements, either as members or otherwise as subjects of interest, User:Cirt is banned from editing such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Offered as an alternative to the two BLP topic bans proposed above by Rob. Intended to more precisely fit the evidence. I do think that the concerns about BLPs are serious enough to require such a remedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Restriction Fits the evidence and violations. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)~~ fails to be wide enough proposing own. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is enacted, you should explicitly specify whether Mitt Romney is covered under it, before we find out whether he is a serious contender for the Republican nomination. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A total BLP ban, a la Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings but stricter, such as "Cirt is indefinitely banned from editing any material which directly relates to any specific living person" would probably be more efficacious. We don't need Cirt's salacious use of dubious sources or undue focus on negative material to the further detriment of any living people. RickK2 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

User:Cirt is reminded

2) User:Cirt is reminded to make use of WP:BRD, and to be careful not to mislabel as vandalism edits that do not fit the definition of vandalism. These reminders apply across all subject areas, and are particularly expected of experienced users and administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Offered as an alternative to #Further related violations proposed by Rob. This probably needs some further revision, but my thinking is to focus more clearly on the specific kinds of conduct that we do not want to see migrate from one subject area to another. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is an essay, so it doesn't really make sense for ArbCom to remind someone to follow it. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't thought of. I'm not sure whether ArbCom does that or not. I suppose another option might be to "encourage" use of BRD. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Wnt

Proposed principles

Voluntary withdrawals

1) At times editors may voluntarily make statements that they will "back away from" or "avoid" a certain type of editing. In such cases the duration, extent, and interpretation of this decision are up to the editor. They are free to change their minds or renege at will. Because of this, such statements should not be considered a reason to avoid or limit AN or arbitration proceedings. If made during such a proceeding, such statements should only be considered and will only have force if formally enacted as a topic ban.

edited Wnt (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Hmmm. WP:DISENGAGE is the right thing to do per policy. Many people do walk away and stay away from topics. If the editor's conduct is borderline or sub- sanctionable, are you suggesting that they should automatically be topic-banned because they've opened the door to it with an offer to disengage? It is also exceedingly difficult to make a fair assessment of motive, which is what would be required to determine whether the offer to disengage was good faith or a ruse to avoid sanctions. Overall, this would probably cause more trouble than it prevents. Roger Davies ^talk 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Anthonyhcole. The problem here, I think, is the implicit assumption that self-restrictions are a ruse to avoid sanctions. By effectively declaring all self-imposed restrictions as meaningless, it diminishes them and may strangely (per WP:BEANS) actually encourage folks to ignore them. This is the opposite of what we want. But otherwise, it's horses for courses: both here and at ANI people tend to look at what people actually as opposed to what they say they'll do. Roger Davies ^talk 19:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I feel that Cirt's tendency to back away and back away has allowed one issue after another to build up, and encouraged his detractors to hound him. Formally resolving issues at the time rather than relying on such informal truces is important to put an end to disputes and make it clear if editors are doing something wrong. Wnt (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda. Generally, ignoring a dispute and moving on to something else is a fine way to approch conflict on en.wikipedia. This case is a bit different in that the unresolved problems are of POV pushing by an 'experienced editor'. If the user's editing behavior had changed, there would be no more issue and no 'hounding' excpet by the folks who are in the wrong. The issue is not hounding, the issue is that they are right (at lease right enough to make outside observers look more closely). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ This principle sanctions the voluntary withdrawal as a ploy. Anytime an editor senses sanctions coming their way they can just say, "i'm going to withdraw from this area of the Wiki," and then just return whenever they please to repeat their disruptive or policy violating editing. No way should we support this. If you think that voluntary withdrawals haven't already cut short attempts to enact sanctions, and wouldn't do so even more in the future if people agree to this principle, you are sadly mistaken. Cirt's voluntary withdrawals are part of what has prolonged this problem.Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, this is the exact opposite of my intent in writing this. I've tried to make the principle clearer by adding "should only be considered" above. Does that help? Wnt (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. If that is the case then I actually see merit in this. Striking oppose.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Wnt, Roger, but I support this because I believe Cirt's behaviour on Scientology-related BLPs was not borderline or sub-sanctionable, but he was able to avoid admonition and sanctions by saying he would withdraw from the area. Arbcom ought to admonish and sanction where it is due, regardless of such professions. As best as I can see from the evidence, Cirt has largely avoided Scientology since then, so formal sanctions may have made little difference to the areas where he edits. But he has expressly said there's nothing substantively wrong with the way he edits and others are just misreading the situation. He is able to hold that view because no one he respects has admonished him for his editing. Had Arbcom admonished and sanctioned him under WP:ARBSCI this timesink may well have been avoided. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Anthony.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unconvinced that Cirt has done anything that wrong, so I wouldn't express it with that connotation, but in terms of the principle what Anthony is saying is what I had in mind. In Cirt's case I'm thinking more that his decisions to withdraw might have prevented him from being vindicated in formal proceedings and encouraged others to bully him. Wnt (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: if the editor's conduct is borderline or sub-sanctionable, then by definition no sanctions are applied. The editor's voluntary withdrawal, if held to, may help ensure that this continues to be the case in the future. But it shouldn't be a negotiation - you shouldn't be in the position of saying, "I'm going to apply sanctions unless you voluntarily withdraw", nor should the editor be saying "I've voluntarily withdrawn so please don't hit me with the sanctions I have coming". You can warn an editor, or you can topic-ban him, and you can give him advice; just don't negotiate for something "voluntary". By definition if you're negotiating sanctions, the sanctions are not voluntary. Wnt (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there is a sanction, log it. If there is no sanction, then the editor is free to do whatever they want, though they are responsible for any affect on their reputation if they say one thing and do another. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom to improve Wikipedia

2) Editors are volunteers seeking to share knowledge about their topics of interest with the world. No editor shall be in any way sanctioned for creating new articles or expanding existing articles when the creation and editing of these articles is within Wikipedia policy, even if the articles in aggregate reflect some interest in or support for a specific POV. WP:NPOV requires articles - but not editors - to be neutral.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This expresses my opposing position to several principles from the Noleander case proposed above. Wnt (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a principle I don't like this one at least as worded. Sanctions need to be put in place where needed to protect the encyclopedia. If a sanction is needed to protect the encyclopedia, it shouldn't be restricted by some technicality. If a users actions are appropriate then there will be no need to impose a protective sanction.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. NPOV means EDITING should be from a neutral point of view. At every point, an article should (in a perfect internet) be at an NPOV state (unrealistic). However, when one does 200 edits to an article in a month, and the article is not really in an NPOV state (see Cirt's May editing of the Santorum stupidity), that is an editing problem by an editor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It also has to be noted that NPOV is a nebulous concept anyway, especially in case of political and religious topics. Also there are a large number of Wikipedia articles that are in clear violation of NPOV by any reasonable standard without there being any significant content dispute among editors. And then there are some articles that you really do not want to make NPOV, as that would lead to WWI (Wiki-War I) breaking out (e.g. the Global warming article). Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This principle enables POV pushing. Essentially saying something like, "it's OK if you focus all your energies on being critical of group X, because someone else will focus on the positive and will balance you out." All editing should ideally be done in a manner that is NPOV. This ideal is not possible clearly, but we should still be striving for it.Griswaldo (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV editing is a non-negotiable standard for editing Wikipedia. We are all, of course, biased, and sometimes our emotions get the better of us when we edit. Nevertheless, continuous POV editing as well as constantly pushing for one POV on an article's talk page is unacceptable. In Cirt's case, however, I think he generally does a good job at writing neutral articles, with a few exceptions. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is entirely possible for an editor to be appalled with a systematic bias in favor of one side in a series of articles, and try to balance them all out - provided this is done by adding more information to document the other side, this is a good thing, and it furthers NPOV in every article, even though it is a POV-driven pattern of editing. Also I'd say that an editor can document the beliefs of one side or group (for example, with a series of articles about religious virtues, or atheist philosophies, or legal actions against Scientology) yet do so in a manner which does not imply that Wikipedia favors one side, but merely documents it. Provided an editor is not writing his POV into the article, it's not a problem. I agree that Cirt's articles most often do not show bias, and I don't think that someone should be able to just put up a list of articles he worked on and say that shows bias in and of itself. (This may be debated for certain specific articles as described in evidence) Wnt (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle. I opposed Noleander not because of his negative stance toward Judaism and other religions, but because he created egregiously biased articles and turned neutral articles into biased ones. I'm opposing Cirt for the same reason. I'd be happy for him to continue working on new religion and political articles if he was restoring NPOV to the topics. But he's not. I think the Noleander principle was well-intended but wrong and oppose it being cited here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~This principle is accurate, but irrelevant. BLP violations aren't improvements in any sense of the word. RickK2 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)~~ Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

Sorry for not responding, I didn't understand that on first reading, and still don't. I'd be happy to engage if you want to elaborate. I'm not supporting BLP violations and in this comment I was addressing how we respond to editors producing biased articles as compared with how we (or whether we should) respond to personal biases (which I have lots of but believe I can nevertheless edit neutrally). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good editing deserves consideration

It is understood that editors occasionally make mistakes. This means that sanctions should consider the ratio between the amount of mischief committed during a specified time period*, to the amount of useful work done.** Therefore, editors should be forgiven for rare policy violations in proportion to their productive efforts.

* The specified time period is that for which violations are counted against the editor. It is understood that sometimes a good editor will deteriorate, and the period considered may then be shorter than his total time on Wikipedia.

** The useful work is directly proportional to the number of edits, the length of each edit, and the average improvement in article quality accomplished by each edit. For "average" editors the number of edits will do as a first approximation.

edited. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I appreciate the underlying point--that, to a degree, excellent contributions to the project mitigate other issues. But that doesn't extend to a magic formula like the one you describe, and ultimately some of the best editors can often be the most troublesome, which means it's better to focus on the problematic content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is a natural corollary to Off2riorob's statement that "It is completely understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake." I feel that Wikipedia has failed to consider this principle at times, leading to high-profile exits of some very productive editors. As Cirt is by all accounts quite productive, ArbCom should consider carefully whether they would sanction three or four different people who collectively did the same work and made the same errors. Because that, after all, is what you'd be replacing him with. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Strong Oppose we don't earn dispensations to violate policy. This proposal frankly disgusts me. Sanctions are to be directly based on need and need is directly based on the negative behavior, not some sort of 'ratio'.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Errors should be fixed. This sounds like an invitation to POV push a subject or topic and use one's admin tools in a good manner at something else (like Afd's). Unhelpful unless the ratio you talk about is something like 1 bias/POV edit error per 1,000 other edits and only if that bias/POV edit is corrected within 48 hrs. We don't expect perfection, we expect consistent work towards NPOV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "rare" to the proposal in response to this. Certainly I don't think any editor should get away with frequent mischief. I think 1/1000 is within an order of magnitude of the ratio I'm looking for. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't address the basic concept of sanctions. Sanctions are not given as punishment, but to protect the encyclopedia. That's why one-off violations are often forgiven when they're unlikely to reoccur. The decisions need to be based on "Does the encyclopedia need protecting?" and if yes "What is the best sanction to accomplish that need?" The idea of making bargins to allow "mischief" making as a reward for work done is rotten to the core.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wnt's comments here are the sort of blind enabling support that User:Cirt has been the beneficiary of in support of his policy violations for way too long. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Blind enabling" is a rhetoric about alcoholics and drug addicts that is inappropriate here. When an editor is doing actual useful work to build up Wikipedia and not doing very much wrong, yes, we should "enable" him to do so. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about drug addicts and alcoholics and do not care either - I care only about User:Cirt's repeated policy violations and clearly putting an end to them through limited editing sanctions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I could support a something that acknowledges good editors will make a mistake every 1000 or so edits. (As Rob has done) That is common sense and rightfully should be an accepted standard. What is clear to based on Evidence page and the RFC/U that there appears to be a systematic editing methodology and agenda behind Cirt's edits. Systematic violations like that are problematic for maintaining an encyclopedia. We are at this case because the Community has taken that approach at ANI, AE and ARBSCI. We all say "yes Cirt that was bad and you were in the wrong. You make good edits so Just dont do it again." That approach. clearly has not prevented Cirt from continuing problematic behaviors. We are here to ensure further violations are either prevented or are subject to enforceable remedy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we allow 1 mistake per 1000 edits, that means Cirt is allowed 141 mistakes - I doubt he has exceeded that. [81] Some principle of proportionality is all I was suggesting. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, I spent a few days meditating over this and have to agree with to a degree with you on this. Your "Ratio" theory has some utility in specific Arbcom situations but this not one them. This ratio is useful when determining when certain extreme sanctions are appropriate. Let us say User:AngryAtheist is a frequent Vandal fighter and has written some good articles on Architecture and on biology. Where User:AngryAtheist has serious problems is when creationists start making POV-forks and he is naturally Irate at the idea. User:AngryAtheist subsequently spends alot of time essentially trolling spewing all sort civility violations creationist pages but maintains substantial quality work including FA, GA, DYK articles. In the Arbcom case titled "creationism" Arbs are faced with a choice of Indefinite block/Ban or topic ban to mitigate the problem. That is perfect scenario for this ratio to used to evaluate whether Indefinite block/Ban or topic ban is most appropriate. In that and similar scenarios it is useful tool. This is not one of those situations The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose completely, and especially per Cube lurker. The very premise is wrong, but also consider that not all edits are equivalent. I can make 99% of my edits basic maintenance tasks, or maybe talk page posts and then 1% real content edits. So what if half of my real content edits violate policy? How would you measure your ratio? 0.5% policy violating edits? Or 50% policy violating edits? Anyway this is just wrong at its core. Disruption and policy violation is bad no matter how many other edits an editor is making.Griswaldo (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize this; that's why I said "useful work" above; clearly some editors make larger or better edits and deserve more consideration, while others make smaller or worse edits and deserve less. My point is that to a zero-order approximation, editors should be allowed more and more mistakes the more they edit, rather than facing a lifetime limit. It is possible to examine subtopics: if we were to go by rocksanddirt's 1/1000 standard, then we could for example focus on whether he's made more than 39 mistakes in article space or 47 mistakes in talk space.

I think you're missing the point entirely. Who judges the seriousness of mistakes and what is "useful work?" What we should be evaluating, always, is the nature of policy violations or disruption and not the other activities of the editor. Some "mistakes" are not mistakes, but are POV-pushing, BLP violations, disruption, personal attacks, etc. Your scheme, however you try to qualify it, opens the door to people getting free passes to make these types of (non)mistakes simply because they also did a bunch of good work. NO WAY. Do you get it now?Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Note that the alleged policy violations are content related and quite nebulous. Even in case of clear cut instances of unacceptable behavior like e.g. personal attacks, it is customary to consider the overall behavior of an editor. If you have insulted people on Wikipedia a 100 times, it matters if you have made a total of 100,000 edits or just 1000 edits. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a principle not a finding of fact or a remedy. It doesn't limit itself to mistakes, it allows "Mischief" to be done as long as one has done a certain amount of good edits. With this principle in hand I could argue that if I run off 5k huggle edits I should be allowed to troll with a sockpuppet. Awful awful case law to be promoting.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the "work done" in machine edits is much less than others and should be counted as such, but I've never actually used those programs. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Cirt can say "Since I'm a good editor, my deliberate or reckless BLP violations shouldn't be sanctioned"? No. Editing for the purpose of damaging living people's reputations needs to be quashed with appropriate celerity, regardless of other contributions. RickK2 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]

Comment I support it as a general idea although, having not personally reviewed all the material, I am not myself sure that it necessarily applies in this instance. "Rare" and similar words are very vague, and should, I think, not be used given the inherent ambiguity. And, like I said, I would want to see a clearer indication of the proportion of good and bad edits indicated to verify the "rarity" in this particular case. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Failed RfC/U

1) WP:Requests for comment/Cirt was created as a complaint by JN466.^[82] It was 44k in length, and included charges with no clear basis in policy, charges previously resolved, a charge based on leaked ArbCom e-mails, and allegations of little importance. It was implausible for the community to digest and decide on all this at once. Due to JN466's failure to focus on clear policy violations in need of resolution, this was not an effective means of dispute resolution, and appeared to some editors to be a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I closed or attempted to close the RFC. To me it seems that JN466 was acting in good faith, that any deficiency in the RFC was due to inexperience with the process or being overwhelmed with the volume or perceived problems. The community was non-plussed by the RFC, but that does not mean the criticism were entirely invalid. Later in the process a view by macwhiz emerged which seemed to best summarize the problems with Cirt's editing. On the whole I think both Cirt and JN466 have acted in good faith, and that if the screaming voices on both sides can be muted, calm and rational advice is all that is needed to resolve the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why this "statement of fact" is inaccurate. Some of those reasons are outlined in the ~~now collapsed~~ section below. Apparently it is out of order to refute this claim of RfC/U failure based on the relevant facts, but when permission to do so is granted I will gladly give it another try.Griswaldo (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sarcasm = not helpful. If you have a problem with my actions you bring it up with me directly. Relevant discussion is obviously permitted, provided it doesn't degrade to personal attacks and discussion of other cases. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've stricken the comment you didn't appreciate. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only failure of the Rfc was the amount of ZOMG HOUNDING OF CIRT screaming that happened. Folks who took some time, reviewed the information JN and others gathered, and thought about the situations and implications, made some good observations about problems that are both Cirt and non-Cirt specific. Based on your other comments here, I assume that you mean it failed because it didnot exhonorate Cirt from questions about editing and pov? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is not really appropriate here. I didn't propose this either--am just commenting on it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per my evidence, I do not think the RfC/U was a failure. It was polarized and consequently less conclusive than it should have been (in part hampered by Jehochman's premature effort to close it, not unlike the effort to close the BLP case), but it was not a failure. The whole point of having arbitration is that previous efforts at dispute resolution left issues unresolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to break up a fight in progress is not "premature". Which BLP case? Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Motion to Close. Meanwhile, back at the RfC/U, after reopening it, editors who had previously been uninvolved had the opportunity to weigh the evidence and offer more balanced, less polarized, recommendations. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly objected to the BLP case because the scope is totally unclear. I have said over and over again that anybody can file a proper request for arbitration at any time. Why are you spreading falsehoods about me by suggesting that my objections are somehow nefarious? Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are being nefarious. Just in error. My understanding of the Arbitrators' responses at the BLP case is that they also thought your motion was incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn personally on the BLP case because I think there should be a BLP case but I hardly see one from the mish mash of stuff given us by the arbs. Regarding the RfC/U I have to agree with Rocksandirt. For instance what would the RfC have looked like without the efforts of Prioryman and his compatriots I wonder? It's a very fair question to ask, and one that Wnt hasn't bothered to broach.Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't too impressed with Prioryman either. A weakness in the RFC system is that we don't usually have clerks to monitor the RFCs and ensure calm, rational, on-topic participation. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're emphasizing Prioryman - it doesn't look like he submitted a comment of his own, but in Stephan Schultz's meta-analysis, Prioryman was one of 17 editors (including myself) endorsing both Gamaliel's and macwhiz's position - by contrast, only 16 endorsed any negative statement about Cirt. (Though both sides continued to endorse after this) My own statement was endorsed by 17 editors (but not Prioryman), with 14 overlapping with the first group. I agree with Schulz that this was a highly polarized debate, but it was polarized along the pre-existing "Wikipolitical" line between inclusionists and deletionists. At least for my own part I don't feel like anyone brought me to the discussion or sharpened my opinion except for the people trying to delete or reduce the santorum article. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, first of all much of the ugliness of the RfC/U occurred on the talk page and not the main page. I assume that you would understand that like yourself others also read the talk page, even if they didn't comment there. That said, I looked directly into Prioryman's conduct and commented about it specifically to Roger Davies when he suggested that Prioryman "expressed mid-ranged views, moderately." Please look at this now archived discussion. Prioryman was a force unto himself when it comes to polarizing the discussion and he was at it from the very beginning. He was the first to claim that Cirt was being hounded, and the amount of times he perpetuated the mantra that this nothing but a witch-hunt are too many to count. I suggest you read the section, and have a look at the RfC more carefully if you don't remember it this way. There are other editors whose involvement in the RfC is odd if you don't account for their connection to Prioryman's former persona. These editors pretty much all also made comments like Prioryman's and they also, to greater and lesser degrees padded the vote count that you are referring to. I don't think it takes a genius to see how corrupted this RfC was by these actions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Witch hunt" wasn't my favorite analogy - that would be billinghurst's "hatchet job done with a blunderbuss". I think what distinguishes Prioryman from the other editors is that you've worked out a legal theory to use against him. I feel like you're making your reputation as a district attorney, and a prosecutor can only prove his skill by convicting the innocent. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is rapidly veering outside the scope of this case and is turning (has turned?) into a mud-slinging contest. Discussion on this page should pertain only to proposals on this case.

I haven't made any secret of my opinion that I thought that the personal attacks by many of Cirt's supporters in the RfC were truly appalling, including such things as comparing Jayen and others to the Nazis and asking personal questions about religious beliefs. Wnt, to his credit, did not, as far as I'm aware, participate in that nonsense. I do plan on seeking separate remedy concerning most of those other editors when I get around to it, using Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I feel the actions of only three of those editors, Prioryman, Jehochman, and Will Beback, rise to a level requiring present ArbCom sanction, which is why I have sections with their names on it in the BLP case where evidence will soon be presented. I ask the ArbCom to, of course, not place blame on Cirt for the actions of some of his supporters. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, you've been threatening to present evidence against me for months. If you're going to do so, please get on with it. Will Beback talk 02:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, it is not acceptable to go around casting aspersions the way you have been doing. If you have evidence post, post it without all the bloviation. It is a personal attack to insult somebody without any basis in evidence. I am a named, real life person, unlike you, who are anonymous. I will not tolerate your baseless attacks on my reputation, and I am saddened that our clerks haven't yet put an end to your tedious slander mongering. Jehochman ^Talk 05:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Proposals by User:ResidentAnthropologist~~

Not needed right now

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Cirt's Contributions~~
1A) Cirt was a frequent contributor to the new religious movements topic area. Cirt participated in this topic area from September, 2007 through Febuary 2011 and had also previously as Smee (talk · contribs) from May 2006-June 2007
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:

IMO, This outlines the history best. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1B) Cirt was a frequent contributor to the new religious movements topic area between September, 2007 through February, 2011.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
This finding can be an alternate to 1A if Smee account portion is deemed inappropriate. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cirt's Self imposed restriction~~
2)In December 2010, Cirt declared they would reduce editing int he Scientology topic are with an added exemption to maintain Featured and Good Articles. In February 2011, Cirt amended the declaration with a imposed a voluntarily restriction on theirself from the Scientology topic area. Cirt has abided by this voluntary restriction through the closing of this arbitration case.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Jayen466 alleges (see questions section above) that Cirt has not abided by his voluntary restrictions in various area. Please comment on this allegation. (Note: as previously noted, Cirt has indicated that he will be presenting his position and evidence by August 15.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Errr.....this case is still open. Cirt has not editied anything in a couple weeks, and it is not impossible to believe that Cirt won't edit anything until after this case closes, but this item is unclear, and doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. Cirt cut back in an area after others had questioned his editing, so? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple finding of fact that describes the situation and Cirt's voluntary restrictions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad - After commenting to "step back" from Scientology editing - User:Cirt still manages to create content not specifically about Scientology and still add many internal links to Scientology articles - January 2011 - User:Cirt created Net.wars, the article isn't really about Scientology at all but User:Cirt then adds about a dozen Scientology related articles to it that mention or cite the book - [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]
User:Cirt in January also created The Best American Magazine Writing 2007, - and links to it, - David Miscavige, Jessica Feshbach, Tory Christman, Mace-Kingsley Ranch School, Aaron Saxton - User:Cirt entered the wikilinks in these articles to the new article he had created - diff, diff .. etc.
If that is what User:Cirt means by stepping back from Scientology and writing articles about free speech .. It does not actually mean stepping back from Scientology, it just means editing at the fringes of the topic area, in this case by writing articles on books that discuss Scientology.
There was nothing wrong with these edits if User:Cirt had not made statement to be stepping back from the topic area. Such contributions don't inspire trust in his declarations, its not as if he was writing about medieval towns was it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Brad, Rob states it well, Cirt has stepped back from the Scientology area for the most part. Indirect advocacy such the politicians targeted by Anonymous and the book discussed above are examples of Cirt's advocacy while under his self imposed restrictions. Had it been a binding restriction like those typically imposed by Arbcom there would have been debate at enforcement about "testing boundaries" of the topic ban. This proposal lays out firmer and clearer foundation to prevent re-occurrences of problematic behavior in the future. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well phrased. Voluntary, self-imposed restrictions will have much vaguer boundaries than clearer, outside imposed ones. One might certainly think that adding links to existing articles is not really disruptive or a violation of a self-imposed restriction, that it was just good editing. It might not be a bad idea for some sort of external statement to be made, as that would be both more binding and less open to interpretation. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Cirt restricted with topic ban~~
1) User:Cirt is topic banned from editing the three following areas broadly construed: a) Articles documenting new or alternative religious movements. b) Biographies of Living Persons who are or have been affiliated with new or alternative religious movements. c) Articles on counter movements in opposition to new or alternative religious movements. d) Biographies of Living Persons who are or have been affiliated with those counter-movements. e) Biographies of Living Persons that have been targets of counter movement activity.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Point "A" covers the wide topic area where Cirt's problematic have been observed and documented. Point "B" is a rewording of what Rob and TryptoFish have suggested. Point "C" completes the "other side" of point "A." Section "D" covers the excessive insertion of counter movement primary sources that have been misused. Point "E" protects individuals who become targets of Counter movement activity. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~This seems to cover the broad bases that User:Cirt has been violating. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
As an alternative to what I proposed, something along these lines would be fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would a politician who has spoken against/in favour of some aspect of Scientology be "affiliated with" Scientology or an opposing group for the purposes of this topic ban? Anyway, as I've said before, topic bans aren't needed yet, just strong admonition and a furious follow-up if he still doesn't get it, after all this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few reservations regarding this. For instance, Rick Ross is a prominent anti-cult speaker, who has himself been subject of some fairly serious criticism. Would editing content related to him to perhaps point toward positive reception of him be included in this restriction or not? So far as I can see, it wouldn't. While that not be a particularly major concern, I think it is one which might well arise. "C" comes close to this, but I'm not sure if it is specifically covered. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Item D specifically covers Rick Ross and Category:Critics of Scientology in general. While potential for benign editing exists in that topic area; Cirt's promotion of individuals within the counter movements raises concern of being able to edit neutrally there. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed right now

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

~~Proposals by User:Count Iblis~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Scrutiny of editors who are alleged to edit in a problematic way~~
1) It can happen that an editor is judged to be behaving in a problematic way by a group of editor, while no consensus has (yet) been reached during formal dispute resolution proceedings on Wikipedia. In such a case, it is allowed to exert scrutiny on the actions of the alleged problem editor, however, care must be taken to prevent this scrutiny from degenerating into harassment.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
This is relevant for alleged problems that occur on long time scales. Editors can think that someone is not behaving appropriately in their judgement while starting a formal dispute resolution process is not yet appropriate. They then will want to keep an eye on that person. Even if this is done with the best intentions in mind (so certainly not to harass the person), this can lead to de-facto harassment over time. To prevent this, one has to be more reserved when intepreting the actions of the person in question compared to that of a random person, while the natural tendency is to do the opposite. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This principle gives cause to consider Cirt's critics, and anyone else who wants an editor to stop violating policy with suspicion. You also assert a "natural tendency" which has been far from natural in these proceedings. Commentators, like yourself, have de-facto treated Cirt's critics as harassers. That appears to have been the "natural tendency" here, not the other way around. If anything a principle that is directly opposite to this one ought to be proposed and passed. You all need no enabling. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. This principle is entirely neutral about whether or not serious policy violations or other types of bad behaviors have occured. So, this principle also applies in a case where the editor in question is guilty of such bad behavior that he/she has to be sanctioned for that. The issue is then that while the problematic behavior is going on, editors who monitor this, have to be careful so as to not create new problems. That would only complicate future dispute resolution processes. Count Iblis (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I Copy edited this for you Count. If "Scruteny" is a regional variation in spelling (Such as alternate british spelling) forgive me. I'll a more detailed comment on this next few days. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting the spelling! Count Iblis (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The general principle is sound. We do not want groups of editors forming an echo chamber to reinforce each other's opinions that some other user is guilty and must be persecuted. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well, the phrasing and I think application are both, I believe, pretty reasonable, and the idea is a very sound one. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by Georgewilliamherbert~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposals by John Carter~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~High quality articles may not need as much work~~
Articles that already of high quality, particularly those which have received some sort of recogntion for quality, will probably require less active and immediate attention than others, barring BLP and other considerations.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Generally true, though I would note that Werner Erhard (book), a GA-rated article, stated that "The writing is, moreover, appalling: formularized zest, officious enthusiasm that is thoroughly uncontagious", when in fact the cited source stated that the book was "attractively written, never shrill or unduly proselytizing, careful to avoid the hysteria and tribalism that usually characterize the early years of movements like est." --JN466 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article passed GA with that misleading quote in place (the source was cited as an offline source, without URL), and the misquote survived in the article for almost another two years after the article acquired GA status. So GA status, certainly, is not a guarantee that articles won't benefit from scrutiny. In my experience, even the FAC process does not delve into offline sources. This quote turned the source on its head, and it may well be that similar articles would benefit from similar scrutiny. It shows that a quality-rated article may read very well, and appear superficially plausible, without necessarily representing its sources accurately at all. --JN466 19:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
Yes, weird. But kind of required for what follows below. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to JN above, that would certainly be a consideration. However, honestly, that instance stated would I think be grounds for loss of GA status as well, and if that status were lost, I doubt it would still qualify as a high quality article. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I had a look at the entry mentioned by Jayen carefully and quite frankly I'm shocked, and I'm also worried about GA process itself at this point. Please see this section on the talk page where I dealt with it in more detail. If this is indicative of GA articles written by Cirt then a principle like the one you are proposing doesn't fly with me. It seems likely that this is not the only article he has authored that has been stamped and approved by GA or FA processes that is deeply flawed.Griswaldo (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please notice how the GA stamp of approval is used by Cirt and another editor as a trump card to keep the article in Cirt's preferred state. This shows rather clearly how the very principle you are proposing can be manipulated rather easily to win POV battles.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, FWIW, I actually wasn't thinking so much of GA when I proposed this. I acknowledge outright that GA status is granted based on, basically, a single reviewer. I was actually thinking more of A-Class as it is used in the Military History WikiProject and FA. I think my other comments below tend to indicate that. Such status is only given when 2 reviewers grant it. I myself used to be (long ago) active in the Biography WikiProject A-Class rating process, and I would hope that, if a similar process were in place with Religion articles particularly, I as one of the reviewers would search all the most relevant reference and tertiary sources I could find. I think that already, more or less, is done at FA status. And I do not dispute the possibility that there may be similar material elsewhere. I wouldn't mind seeing the GA people specifically asked by ArbCom to review all such potential problem articles. I do agree that POV can easily be manipulated by someone as heavily involved in the processes as Cirt. Having said that, I am at a loss as to how to prevent such happening again in the future, should someone be dedicated and knowledgable enough to do such again. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Cirt has a history as an extremely productive and beneficial editor~~
~~1) Cirt has, over his history as an editor, been an extremely productive developer of high quality articles, and has done extraordinary service in the broad field of review as well.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. It does seem to me that it is more than reasonable to acknowledge in the decision the great amount of quality time and effort Cirt has given the project. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cirt has helped to bring several of the articles in the NRM and Scientology areas, among others, to an extraordinary level of quality~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Yep, still being weird here. But I do think that the point is worth noting, and is somewhat relevant to what follows. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Encourage editors to develop contentious articles~~
~~All editors are encouraged to help bring articles about contentious or disputed subjects to the highest level of quality possible.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Yes, I know, another no-brainer, but maybe necessary for the below. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Editors are encouraged to engage in broad based discussion of proposed changes to already high quality contentious articles before making such changes~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
I hope this makes sense. I do think it is obvious that most articles of high quality, maybe particularly those which have achieved A-class or higher, really probably don't need to necessarily be adjusted particularly heavily for every new news story or book. And wikipedia principles do include that we don't really need to have articles updated immediately. What I guess I'm getting to here is, maybe, when new information comes out about contentious subjects, the best way to proceed might be to develop the content directly related to the new source first, like a separate article on the book in question, for instance, and then, when that is done, encourage input from others, possibly through RfC?, about how and where to adjust the content of the logical parent article. And, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing the development of an active "A-Class review" process for all religion articles, particularly those on contentious subjects, and would be very happy to be actively involved in such if it exists and I thought I would be able to contribute substantively and neutrally. The phrasing of all this sucks, I know, but I think the language could be improved if the ideas were found to be of any quality. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposals by User:Example 5~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Analysis of evidence~~
~~Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis~~
~~Citing Usenet (1)~~
Cirt is accused of citing Usenet as an unreliable source for a BLP regarding Tom Cruise. The source is [91]; the diff is [92].
The Usenet article links to the New York Daily News which it copies word for word, but the link no longer functions. However, it is possible to find this article there.[93] The article is very widely disseminated on the web, and linked to by Fox News (to some a reliable source). [94]
What's true is that this technically violates WP:EL as a copyright violation. One might also criticize using a tabloid source in a BLP, except so far as I know no fact in the story is factually disputed, even on Wikipedia. Failing to find a link to the original article might be careless, but the net effect - getting a full statement of the facts to the reader - does not express bias or fabrication of any kind. Wnt (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
Wnt, Griswaldo answered that two weeks ago. The copied New York Daily News article was not the part of the post that was cited. --JN466 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
One does not Cite UseNet that is the rule. Let's look at the problems with this off the top of my head:

The material is copyrighted and NYDN did not consent to it's posting, Thus it's copyright violation

The Material maybe altered in between NYDN and usenet posting. This happens commonly though did not happen in this case.

Usenet posting could have been completely made up for lulz.

Daily News is a poor source but we know there is editorial control so they dont get sued. Usenet doesn't have any checks or balances. The fact is there are better sources that could have been used as you have amply proves that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Usenet article is a word for word copy of the Daily News article as shown by the links I cited above. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter because the part that Cirt was using in the usenet post was not from the Daily News article in the first place. Another user pointed this out at the RfC, then I pointed it out at the RfC, then Jayen linked to my comment above before you posted this comment. What gives Wnt? Can you please be more careful with these claims. Also, that said, Usenet is never reliable and is not allowable as a convenience link to news articles. Ontop of that consensus also seems to be that the Daily News is not adequate for contentious BLP materials. So that's three strikes in one I'm afraid. Before you respond please consider carefully that the most important "strike" here is the fact that the Daily News article part of the usenet post wasn't even being used.Griswaldo (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the evidence that he was necessarily "using" the second part of that Usenet post (itself a copy of the contested Circus Hours publication) because he references that source directly in the same clump of references in the diff you cited. There really wasn't any great need to include it at all, and the whole topic is a bit silly, but I don't see him taking a claim only found on Usenet and putting it into a BLP. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Citing Usenet (2)~~
JN466 also mentions that Cirt cites Usenet in this diff [95], which brings us to 'the official "scientology celebrities FAQ" of alt.religion.scientology'. The FAQ was written (as Cirt said in the edit) by Tilman Hausherr. The site on which it is housed is The homepage of Tilman Hausherr. This is a primary source, containing detailed information that could not be accommodated in the Wikipedia page.
I might prefer if its particular bias were labelled up front, but no reader following it would be unaware of its point of view. It is perfectly reasonable to link to a particularly well-known list of Scientologists from "List of Scientologists". The fact that the author also placed this material on Usenet is completely irrelevant to the fact that he is a notable expert for one side publishing it on his personal web site. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Did you read the legal disclaimer in it? "Being in the FAQ means that I have read somewhere that someone is a scientologist." Thats not the type of fact checking we require even for an external link. Secondly what the hell makes him an "expert." I see a bunch of ramblings on self published site no credentials or publications in the topic area. This completely ignores the potentially libelous information in all his many accusations. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RA. Tillman Houser is not a recognized "expert" on Scientology or any other group. He is a recognized cult critic, but not an expert in any scholarly sense of the term.Griswaldo (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recognized critic should count as an expert - if not, what separates him from the hundreds of thousands of people who just don't like Scientology? Why is he notable? You don't have to like a group to be an expert about it. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are not addressing my other two points which are far more critical to assessing an external link's appropriateness. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being known for being critical of something does not ever mean that you are therefore an "expert" on the subject. Where on earth do you get that from?Griswaldo (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~1971 book~~
(Retracted, sorry) The diff [96] is described as citing a "1971 book that misspells sanctum sanctorum". As seen in the diff, the book is listed as published 2006. Barnes&Noble confirms this. [97].
It is possible that this is indeed a misspelling - Cirt provides perhaps too much text in a quote from the book, which includes that line about how the girl's buttocks "swung clear of the bed" as she "thrust upward". For mere ordinary men an interpretation regarding anal sex and lube seems implausible. Yes, Cirt may have been careless to include this reference, though at the time he was being relentlessly hounded by people threatening to delete his article at any moment for lack of "notability". But if so it was an innocent mistake, the obvious outcome of a search for "santorum" in literature; the long quote is proof of its innocence, since the quote undermined any deception.
I am more concerned about the carelessness of someone who comes to the Arbitration Committee with so many allegations against another editor, who points this out as a "1971 book", even after being told repeatedly by many editors in the RfC/U that he needed to screen his allegations to remove those that are unreasonable. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
The novel was published in 1971 by Ophelia Press and reprinted in 2006. The book itself says so: [98]. The author's real name was Dan Marlowe (an anagram of Rod Waleman), and he died in 1986. [99] --JN466 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Okay, I'll have to give you this one - I didn't dig deep enough. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to be less hasty with these comments, especially since many of them accuse others of not doing their diligence in reviewing the issues. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dubious theories~~
~~Some portions of the case against Cirt are impossible to refute, because they do not represent any allegation that policy was violated.~~
JN466 lists articles about Tom Cruise that Cirt worked on, saying only "Generally mocking/negative." without giving any diffs. Having an area of interest is not a crime, nor is documenting negative material.

WP:Wikibombing cites only a diff by JN466 himself.[100] I have no idea of the relevance; editors shouldn't be able to cite themselves to get around the 500-word limit on the evidence section.

The summary "Erhard faced tax and family problems" seems like a perfectly fair summary of the extensive IRS trouble and some kind of incest case, even though they were dropped. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Responding to the comments below, Cirt has indicated he's been travelling, but will present his position and evidence by August 15 (i.e., within a week from today). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
There does need to be criticism of the unseemly witch hunt atmosphere. The entire "Wikibombing" essay by JN was dragged in for deletion as an attack on Cirt and gutted out. There is way, way, way more personal history to this case than meets the eye. Unfortunately, Cirt isn't mounting any sort of defense, so the snarling pack dominates the day. Carrite (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, you are free to mount a defense of Cirt if you feel he isn't being adequately defended. I would suggest, however, that the defense include things like diffs, links, and references to policy and guidelines instead of calling other editors names like "snarling pack." Perhaps it's just me, but I think that type of approach would be more helpful. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not his buddy, his advisor, or his lawyer. If a guy with 73 fucking barnstars ("fucking" added for emphasis, not as an verb) wants to mount a Gandhi defense, who am I to argue with him? Still, the nasty pack mentality of his opponents pisses me off... Carrite (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Aaron Saxton video~~
Off2riorob criticizes Cirt for illustrating an article about Aaron Saxton with a free video of Aaron Saxton speaking about the issues and experiences for which he is notable. It is true that Off2riorob and JN466 formed a "consensus" on BLP/N against this video; contributions by KillerChihuahua and Delicious carbuncle were not explicitly supportive but not opposed. Nonetheless, I believe it is actually appropriate to include a video by an author speaking about a controversy, even if he makes some allegations against third parties. It is clearly the opinion of one person, and clearly a reliable source about the opinion of that one person. It is an image on Wikipedia and should not be subject to WP:EL restrictions on linking to third party self-published sites making allegations about third persons. In any case it is a self-published source by the subject of an article about himself; nowhere else (e.g. in politics) are such sources banned unless they say nothing about anyone else.
I won't extend this argument to the video of the girl from the ranch, because choosing one not very notable "student" of many with a strong belief does violate WP:UNDUE; nonetheless, I don't think that putting up a video of material relevant to an article deserves any strong sanction from ArbCom. The opponents already got their way with their noticeboard discussion and there should be no need for additional recriminations. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
An arbitration case is not a location to attempt to change policy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as changing policy - placement of an image, including video, is governed by WP:Image use policy, not WP:EL or WP:SELFPUB. If WP:EL did apply, which it doesn't, it would allow the page as "a link to an official page of the article's subject", as if the subject had "published" to Wikipedia. WP:SELFPUB doesn't apply because it's an illustration, not a source from which facts are cited with Wikipedia's voice. Wnt (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you support adding embedded self published videos with allegations against living people without any independent confirmation then you are also in need of sanctions imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in a less obscure case such a principle should be uncontroversial. For example, if we had CC-licensed video of a Rwandan leader making a key speech calling for atrocities against the opposite ethnic group, calling them cockroaches, accusing their leaders of being criminals and conspirators ... would there be any doubt that we should include it in our coverage of the genocide, no matter what it says about third parties? Wnt (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies everywhere in the project. Each item (self published video for example) should be evaluated for use on each article with that in mind. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Prioryman's evidence~~
Prioryman alleges that I was "involved in a systematic off-wiki harassment campaign mounted by Delicious carbuncle". Even assuming, for the moment, that his characterisation of Delicious carbuncle's actions were accurate, it mischaracterises what my participation in Wikipedia Review is about.
Wikipedia Review is a public forum to discuss Wikipedia that anyone can contribute to. Many Wikipedians in good standing—ordinary editors, admins, checkusers, arbitrators—have active accounts on Wikipedia Review, and have commented on other Wikipedians in threads there. Not everyone who reads the site will like what is said about them, any more than they will like what they hear said about them if they overhear a water cooler conversation. But to believe that everyone who comments on a thread at Wikipedia Review, or stands at the same water cooler in the real-life scenario, thereby endorses everybody else's comments made in that setting is absurd. There are people on Wikipedia Review who make intelligent, insightful comments, and there are people who don't, just like in Wikipedia and anywhere else. I am responsible for my own words, not everybody else's.
I am puzzled that Prioryman's evidence seems to be more about Delicious carbuncle than myself, even though Delicious carbuncle is not a party to this case. But I will address those points also.
Prioryman states, first of all, that Delicious carbuncle is topic-banned from Scientology. This is not true. The topic ban Prioryman links to was overturned by User:Elen of the Roads when it became apparent that it was the result of canvassing by Cirt. The matter was discussed at AN/I. In the AE thread that followed, Delicious carbuncle and Cirt both received an equal warning that a discretionary topic ban was contemplated against them both.
Prioryman states that Carbuncle's declared intention in his Wikipedia Review posts earlier this year was to "drive Cirt from the topic area". He omits to mention that, following the warning he had received, Cirt himself had made a public statement in December 2010 declaring that he would avoid editing within the topic area, except for existing GAs and FAs. He showed no sign of doing as he said. While Carbuncle made some comments on Wikipedia Review that might have raised concerns on-wiki, pointing out that an editor is not keeping to his promise to avoid editing a topic area is something that happens on-wiki every day; and it might help to bear in mind that Delicious carbuncle had just been at the receiving end of canvassing and an illegitimate topic-ban for criticising Cirt's editing on-wiki.
Prioryman speaks of the repeated highlighting of "entirely legitimate and proper edits by Cirt". Two longstanding and respected administrators, User:Lar and User:Scott MacDonald, disagreed with Prioryman's assessment of these edits. Like Carbuncle, they considered them evidence that Cirt had reneged on his earlier public statement, and posted their concerns to Cirt's talk page, with the result that Cirt made a further statement about stepping back, and another in February.
Prioryman states that I have never to his knowledge disputed any of these edits on-wiki. Whatever I have discussed on Wikipedia Review, I have also raised on-wiki, in the various AE, ANI and BLPN threads linked here, as well as in the RfC/U and this case. The result is that Cirt himself has now acknowledged that a topic ban is appropriate. Throughout the process of raising these concerns on-wiki, I have been vilified by multiple editors, and accused of hounding Cirt. As Cirt has now accepted that my and others' complaints had a basis in fact, please stop the attacks and the vilification.
Lastly, if I criticise someone's edits and conduct on Wikipedia, it does not mean that I don't wish them well as a person. I appreciate Cirt's acknowledgment. I apologise for any distress I have caused him—if there had been a gentler way of doing this, I would have chosen it—and I wish Cirt all the best for his continued contributions to Wikipedia. I feel much the same way about you, Prioryman. We did good work together on the Inner German border FAC. As far as I am concerned, the hatchet was buried long ago. Let's leave it there. --JN466 00:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
There is no guilt by association. Merely participating at Wikipedia Review is does not make somebody responsible for what other people say on that site. Jehochman ^Talk 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I'm not suggesting guilt by association. I'm suggesting "guilt" by active participation (in DC's campaign) - a different issue altogether. But see my comments below for further context. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Jayen466: I'd like to say at the outset that I respect and rather like both you and Cirt. I've worked productively with both of you on developing featured articles, and I know that you are both conscientious and productive editors. This has absolutely nothing to do with any personal disagreements I have with you. My involvement has been due to three issues about which I was very concerned:
The first is the repeated claims made by you and others that Cirt was engaged in search engine optimisation, which never had the slightest evidence to back them up. It just seems to have appeared in a thread as a speculative claim which critics of the santorum article latched onto as proven fact. Neither you nor anyone else appears to have made any effort to verify that on-wiki SEO was even possible (the purpose of my recent study). You seem to have assumed the worst throughout without assuming good faith or looking for alternative explanations.
Second, as other editors pointed out in the RfC/U, your evidence was a potpourri of genuine issues mixed with exaggerations, misrepresentations, trivia (bacon?) and innuendo. This was covered in the RfC/U so I don't propose to rehash it here. I objected to the way you were throwing everything you could at Cirt in the apparent hope that something would stick. I even advised you at one point to stick to substantive issues with credible evidence rather than just throwing out unsourced allegations. I'm glad to see that you've taken that approach in the case evidence and that you've dropped a lot of the things I was objecting to in the RfC/U. I don't for a moment object to presenting genuine issues but it's only proper to focus on hard evidence - otherwise you're doing a disservice to the person you're accusing.
Third, I have been aware for some time of DC's campaign on WR. It is the most prolonged, systematic and overtly abusive campaign of off-wiki harassment I've ever come across by any editor who wasn't already banned. You contributed to that campaign and you could not have been ignorant of why it was being mounted. In mitigation, you weren't abusive or explicitly harassive in the same way as DC, but given your history with Cirt you should not have participated in DC's campaign. I think it showed very poor judgment on your part and it raised questions about your good faith. I raised it here to illustrate the hostile and confrontational nature of your relationship with Cirt. I will not be recommending sanctions against you for it, but I will be asking for the propose interaction ban to extend to off-wiki forums as well. I do not want to see you continuing to pursue Cirt on WR as a means of getting around any interaction ban. The dispute between the two of you has taken up far too much of other people's time and it needs to end now, permanently, on and off-wiki.
~~Thank you for pointing out some errors in my evidence. I'll endeavour to fix as much as I can. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~General discussion~~
~~Observations by Anthonyhcole~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Not sure where to put this, so if it's in the wrong place, let me know. A topic ban seems inappropriate to me. The problem I see with Cirt's editing is an inability or unwillingness to edit topics he feels strongly about in a neutral way. I share his view of Scientology and Santorum but believe his style of writing on such topics is blatantly biased. We're an encyclopedia, and putting up obvious attack pages is bad for this project, as is putting up obvious puff-pieces. I condemn these behaviours equally when I see them in advocates or opponents of religions, quackery, pseudoscience, fringe theories, races or ideologies.
Banning him from this or that topic is just playing whack-a-mole. We need to change his behaviour across the project. His current fascination is free speech: a very important topic. I see no value in banning him from new religions and political blps only to watch him take the same behaviours into free speech. So I oppose a topic ban, and recommend the committee, if it agrees he has been habitually and seriously breaching WP:NPOV, admonishes Cirt for that and warns him that if he continues to regularly ignore WP:NPOV (and any other policies), particularly but not only on BLPs, serious sanctions will be applied without further warning.
I understand that policing this via WP:AE is going to be more difficult than a simple topic ban. The admin corp has persistently refused to address Cirt's behaviour. ~~and has blocked and driven off this site more than one editor who drew attention to his behaviour~~ I'm not sure how you deal with that.
Also, if the committee finds, as I have, that there is nothing intrinsically dysfunctional with Cirt and Jayen's interactions, and that Jayen has not been hounding Cirt but simply pointing out problematic behaviour, I ask them not to impose an interaction ban. There would be no point to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first paragraph, Cirt has been told before that his edits to pages within the topics discussed above are not becoming of an editor, and admin, or Wikipedia as a whole. He hasn't changed much and so a topic ban is what I believe to be appropriate. I would not be averse though to a time limit on the topic bans (would you agree?).
In response to your second paragraph: The way to change Cirt's behaviour is with bans. If we see a vandal, we change his/her ways by banning them until they stop. Cirt is no vandal though. If he does not take a lesson with this arbitration and continues on free speech, he will be banned again.
Could you please provide diffs to substantiate the claim in your third paragraph that admin corp has "blocked and driven off this site more than one editor who drew attention to [Cirt's] behaviour." Substantial accusations require substantial proof.
I have no personal opinion as to whether Jayen has been hounding Cirt, nor do I find fault in Jayen wanting to bring light to Cirt's disruptive edits. What I do find fault in is the way he went about it. Also Cirt defends himself with bad faith assumptions and Jayen has been accused of off-wiki discussion about Cirt's editing as opposed to a notice board.
~~All in all, your view is valid and I hope our various perspectives can shed light on the opposing sides. Vale. Chris (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]~~
Thank you. I've been off line for a bit. I've just looked for evidence of admins blocking and driving critics off, and can't find any. I thought I'd seen it at Cirt's RfC/U. I don't have time to scour for it, so have struck the comment, rather than leave a possibly inaccurate assertion in place. The point remains, though, that if the admin corps has been unwilling to sanction or even criticise Cirt for his obvious and blatant POV pushing, then expecting them to impartially police a sanction along the lines of "observe WP:NPOV" at WP:AE may be naïve.
For a relatively short and contained example, see the Sharron Angle stuff here. It was wiped up immediately by NW, who described it as ridiculously POV in their edit summary, but not a word was said to Cirt about it. In fact, the editor who was trying to correct it was admonished severely at ANI. A similar thing happened over the Daryl Wine Bar incident (in the same section of RfCU/Cirt linked to just now). I followed that case and was disgusted by the article itself, that it had been written by an admin, and by the attitude at ANI towards the article, its author, and the sole inexperienced editor who had been trying to correct it.
Put simply, Cirt has been abusing WP:NPOV for a long time. Case after case of this has been brought to the attention of the admin corps, and they've ignored it. This may be because on many occasions (not the two mentioned above) the people drawing attention to his problematic behaviour were problems themselves. Perhaps admins just got into the habit of abusing and threatening anyone who criticised Cirt. I suspect that's the case, along with the natural repugnance most of us share towards his targets. If so, I'd like the committee to address this somehow, because "that he hasn't been corrected by the admin corps" is the big issue here, not "that Cirt has been repeatedly breaching NPOV": lots of people do that.
I know I should go back through the history but I have very little time at the moment and want to devote what I have to writing two articles that mean more to me than this important affair. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors driven off include PelleSmith (in my evidence) and Njsustain (Griswaldo's evidence), who said at the RfC/U that he found the incident so distasteful that he felt almost completely turned off of WP and edits very little now. --JN466 06:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony: Okay, so you've had experience with Cirt's editing before. I've never been privy to any of this until a few days ago so I welcome your experience. I do find your comment "'...he hasn't been corrected by the admin corps' is the big issue here, not 'that Cirt has been repeatedly breaching NPOV": lots of people do that.'" intriguing. It makes good sense and is something that should be thought of, but in regards to this case, I believe it is only the actions of Cirt and Jayen under arbitration here so admin's lack of action wouldn't be pertinent. See if there is a forum to bring it up on.

@Jayen: Thanks for pointing out some examples.Chris (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many IP casualties as well. Here for example an IP alphabetises a list of names. They are reverted as a vandal. This looks like a good-faith edit to me (the five top-billed lead actresses in The Women are correct); it too is reverted as vandalism, the IP is warned for this edit on their talk page, and later blocked by Cirt. Etc. --JN466 06:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@JN. I think you can make a good case for Cirt discouraging or driving off editors, but I was asserting other admins had been doing it on his behalf.
@Chris, there is nowhere but arbcom to bring a situation like this and, having specifically excluded the behaviour of others from this case, and the behaviour of Cirt from the other case, it falls through the gap. I'll think about this. I have to go out now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Newyorkbrad --Anthonyhcole (talk)
Pieter Kuiper said that Cirt "got him banned".^[101] My feeling about this was that we should not blame someone bringing a truthful complaint if an admin blocks someone incorrectly (if he did); this got some limited traction in the Rfc/U before blowing up again.^[102] Wnt (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sort of meta-comment to Anthony's opening points, I think it is useful to distinguish BLPs from other content. WP:BLP properly sets some very important standards, whereas elsewhere WP:NPOV requires presenting both the "good" and the "bad", to an extent that might over-emphasize the "bad" in BLPs. The fact remains that we will, from time to time, have editors (often IPs passing through) who will try to make POV edits that are promotional to new religious movements and the like. If we let them get away with it a bit on low-traffic BLPs, that's not too bad, whereas topic-banning Cirt from adding "bad" stuff to those BLPs may make sense (even if it means Cirt cannot revert those IPs). I'm not convinced that we have evidence that Cirt needs to be banned from non-BLP pages, but I am convinced that we will, from time to time, have pro-movement POV pushers passing through.

As for Cirt moving on to other areas like free speech, that's a tough question. Until we see some indication that Cirt will be non-constructive in areas unrelated to new religious movements and the like (and there is no evidence of it yet, with much evidence to the contrary!), it may be best to go with "Cirt is reminded" type decisions, and leave further bans, if any, to a future arbitration case. I know that's a bit disappointing, but it's the reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've made myself clear.
Cirt has been obviously, egregiously violating WP:NPOV on political, commercial and religious articles. When this has been pointed out to the admin corps, it has admonished the messenger. His behaviour has not changed. Why would it? Why would we expect it to be any different in the highly charged field of free speech?

I believe that he may well self-correct if the committee, or anybody, anybody he respects, were to admonish him in clear terms for POV editing, particularly but not only wrt BLP. I am not recommending anything other than that. It is long overdue, and if the admin corps had done it years ago, and backed it up with serious sanctions if he ignored their complaints, we wouldn't be here now.

The bigger question is, why has the admin corps failed to address this? My question to Newyorkbrad is, simply, is this question appropriate for this or the feuding case? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the dispute with Pieter Kuiper began in Commons, where Pieter was blocked and unblocked several times for nominating copyright violations uploaded by Cirt for deletion: [103]. This was a similar case of shooting the messenger, complete with a proposal of an interaction ban. Pieter's nominations were grounded in policy (see the long list of redlinks in that discussion, indicating the files Pieter nominated – every file but one was eventually deleted per nom, the other one had a licence change), yet Pieter was the one blocked and warned off looking at any other uploads by Cirt. When Kameraad Pjotr finally unblocked Pieter, Cary Bass, the WMF volunteer coordinator, threatened Kameraad Pjotr with a desysop: [104]. At one point, Mike Godwin, the Foundation lawyer at the time (and also a free-speech lawyer) weighed in on Cirt's behalf: [105], in one of only nine edits he ever made to Commons, telling Pieter not to worry about copyright violations: "But even if there is a cognizable copyright claim, the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)." Pieter's reponse: [106]. For reference, the start of the discussion was here. --JN466 11:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is impressive that Mike Godwin, not merely a lawyer but a really good one, would agree with Cirt that a filing in United States District Court is public domain. The detractors seem to be saying here that because a consensus of Commons and the WMF lawyer supported Cirt, that means they're all part of some sinister conspiracy. What I see is one invalid charge after another, not just this one, most if not all of the RfC/U and even this arbitration (~~like the "1971 book" that is actually a 2006 book if you look at the references or search for it~~ well OK I missed that one but I still have reservations about several others). If the detractors could edit their allegations to only what is true, reasonable and relevant, then they could have called Cirt on a few penny-ante offenses and gotten some consensus. Instead, I feel as if they're releasing "chaff" in the hope that with all the stuff out there, he'll waste his time rebutting invalid arguments and won't recognize or respond to any real points they might have. Whether or not that's true, I think that when you try to weigh in on a dispute and you find two or three accusations that fall apart when you look at them closely, you get fed up with it and don't examine the others. Maybe that does mean that Cirt has gotten away with a few things, but the blame for that goes largely to those making all these unreasonable accusations. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you both please take this to another thread, and if no one has anything to say about the points I made, directly, then just let this thread die? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic ban isn't going to work, acquiescence to Cirt's abuse won't fly either. The only available remedy would then be to ban Cirt from Wikipedia entirely, for a very long period of time. But I still hold out some hope that Cirt will regard the imposition of topic bans, coupled with desysopping and required OTRS privilege surrender, as a warning that he will be completely banned if this nonsense continues. RickK2 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Struck comments by indefinitely blocked impersonation account.[reply]
Desysopping and OTRS surrender would clearly signal how seriously we take POV editing. But topic bans would be pointless. The admonition is meant to drive behaviour change. Let's assume it will work. I think it will. Restricting where he can edit would be needlessly punitive and would deprive Wikipedia of his extensive expertise. This is, apparently, a competent, enthusiastic and productive editor. All that's required is a way, way overdue very serious, genuine admonition (backed up by significant sanctions with the intention to implement if there's more of the same behaviour) from people he respects, and move on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,655: / Line 1,655: @@
 :'''Comment by others:'''
 :: There is no guilt by association.  Merely participating at Wikipedia Review is does not make somebody responsible for what ''other'' people say on that site. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
+:::Correct. I'm not suggesting guilt by association. I'm suggesting "guilt" by active participation (in DC's campaign) - a different issue altogether. But see my comments below for further context. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 18:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
+:In response to Jayen466: I'd like to say at the outset that I respect and rather like both you and Cirt. I've worked productively with both of you on developing featured articles, and I know that you are both conscientious and productive editors. This has absolutely nothing to do with any personal disagreements I have with you. My involvement has been due to three issues about which I was very concerned:
+:* The first is the repeated claims made by you and others that Cirt was engaged in search engine optimisation, which never had the slightest evidence to back them up. It just seems to have appeared in a thread as a speculative claim which critics of the santorum article latched onto as proven fact. Neither you nor anyone else appears to have made any effort to verify that on-wiki SEO was even possible (the purpose of my recent study). You seem to have assumed the worst throughout without assuming good faith or looking for alternative explanations.
+:* Second, as other editors pointed out in the RfC/U, your evidence was a potpourri of genuine issues mixed with exaggerations, misrepresentations, trivia (bacon?) and innuendo. This was covered in the RfC/U so I don't propose to rehash it here. I objected to the way you were throwing everything you could at Cirt in the apparent hope that something would stick. I even advised you at one point to stick to substantive issues with credible evidence rather than just throwing out unsourced allegations. I'm glad to see that you've taken that approach in the case evidence and that you've dropped a lot of the things I was objecting to in the RfC/U. I don't for a moment object to presenting genuine issues but it's only proper to focus on hard evidence - otherwise you're doing a disservice to the person you're accusing.
+:* Third, I have been aware for some time of DC's campaign on WR. It is the most prolonged, systematic and overtly abusive campaign of off-wiki harassment I've ever come across by any editor who wasn't already banned. You contributed to that campaign and you could not have been ignorant of why it was being mounted. In mitigation, you weren't abusive or explicitly harassive in the same way as DC, but given your history with Cirt you should not have participated in DC's campaign. I think it showed very poor judgment on your part and it raised questions about your good faith. I raised it here to illustrate the hostile and confrontational nature of your relationship with Cirt. I will not be recommending sanctions against you for it, but I will be asking for the propose interaction ban to extend to off-wiki forums as well. I do not want to see you continuing to pursue Cirt on WR as a means of getting around any interaction ban. The dispute between the two of you has taken up far too much of other people's time and it needs to end now, permanently, on and off-wiki.
+:Thank you for pointing out some errors in my evidence. I'll endeavour to fix as much as I can. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 18:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 ===Template===