Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:56, 13 August 2011

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion: scope of case

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Motion to Close

2) This case has reached its natural conclusion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ::::::::::::I did miss that. But now that I read it, I don't see any allegations of violations of policy. If giving out barnstars to people who agree with you is a problem then that'd require writing a new policy to cover it. Elonka is not a party - should she be? As for the U.S. Labor material, no one claimed it was a BLP violation. The ''Washington Post'' is a reliable source for American political activities. There's been no efforts at dispute resolution on these issues. So if that's what this case is about then I don't see why we're here. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::Perhaps you should wait until others ''present evidence'' and see where it leads - right now I am aghast that a person can ''seriously'' claim that material removed from one article as a BLP violation is no longer a BLP violation when placed in another article!   My evidence was ''not'' directed at any single editor, but aimed at showing that the problem exists, and is serious enough that ArbCom should (must) address it.   Apparently it is your position that the 800 pound gorilla does not exist <g>.   By the way, if ArbCom decides to allow additional ''editor-specific'' evidence, I suspect I and others will be able to find ''sufficient'' evidence. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::I've been waiting a month to learn what this case is about. As for the U.S. Labor material, no one claimed it was a BLP violation. Please identify this 800-pound gorilla so we can address it directly. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 22:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 :::I don't think Cirt is eager to participate in the two ArbCom cases, he'll write up his evidence only because he was asked to do so by ArbCom. It should be clear that as far as Cirt is concerned, the matter was already settled before the start of the case. It is just that some other editors were not satisfied by Cirt's voluntary withdrawal from the problem areas.
 :::It goes against the spirit of Arbitration to argue an old dispute if that dispute is no longer relevant for editing articles. One has to note here that Cirt's opponents have taken the position that an article that is not written according to their interpretation of NPOV and/or BLP is a ground for starting adminstrative action, even if editing that article to correct the problem as they see it, does not lead to any editing disputes with the original editor(s). [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)