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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Evidence length

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions about scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably unhelpful observation

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

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

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

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

Comment to Tryptofish

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

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

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

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

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

• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche[WP] (309)

• Lyndon LaRouche[WP] (184)

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

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

• User talk:Jayen466[WP] (119)

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

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

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

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

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

• User talk:Jimbo Wales[WP] (79)

• Red Barked Tree[WP] (78)

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

• Talk:Bukkake (sex act)[WP] (59)

• Ganges[WP] (59)

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

• Anna Murray-Douglass[WP] (57)

• User:Jayen466[WP] (55)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Partridge Dictionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment 2 to Tryptofish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Cla68

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand - how can the "Manipulation of BLPs" case be about "feuding and activism in the Scientology, Lyndon Larouche and similar topic areas" and exclude Cirt and Jayen466, who are among the main players in those topics? Also, a LaRouche case was rejected in April - and there haven't been any significant disputes or dispute resolution since then. What disputes is the ArbCom planning on settling?   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Prioryman- the bigger picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By long tradition cases examine the conduct of all the parties, and go pretty much where that leads. That applies as much to the "Manipulation of BLPs" case as any other. Prioryman is a party to the BLP case but not this one. Plus, in this particular instance, a credible allegation was made weeks back this was a continuation of a Scientology-related dispute.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Roger, could you please edit the scope of the BLP case to make it clear that it's allowed there to add evidence from the Cirt/Scientology dispute? Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're adding Cirt to that case then we should add Jayen466 too.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree - add both User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 to that case, its false to not be able to discuss them there as they are both clearly involved in the topic scope. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that User:ChrisO's failure to stick to his falsely claimed right to vanish request requires any discussion at all - Arbcom should simply do their work and revert his false vanish to connect him back to all his prior accounts/Arbitration restrictions/block records as a failed WP:RTV. - TheUser:ChrisO/User:Prioryman is an anti Scientology activist and author with prior editing restrictions in that area and should never be allowed to return to editing in areas where he has been disruptive before, he is like User:Cirt, so involved in related activism as to never be able to edit in the topic area with regards to policy, their activism overrides their policy compliance, and as such he should be returned to his disruptive edit history. The User:ChrisO/User:Prioryman also operates as an enabler to other violators/activists and has disrupted at arbitration level in multiple topic areas. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the evidence supports your assertions. It's perplexing that ArbCom hasn't already taken the action you recommend, being that they are agents, perhaps unwittingly, in facilitating the current problem. If ArbCom doesn't take action to correct the problem I plan on taking the issue to ANI or AN for resolution after the cases close. ChrisO would probably claim that this would open him to more "harrassment". Well, editing Wikipedia is a privilege and if you abuse that privilege, such as by lying to your fellow editors, then that privilege can be rescinded. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence moved

Per the comments by Roger and David above, I've moved [9] [10] the Prioryman evidence section to the BLP case, where Prioryman is a party and the Committee is better able to respond to his actions without going off-topic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold, since there is a open discussion here about this issue (and an as-yet unfulfilled request to clarify the terms of the case to which the comments were moved), would you mind reverting yourself for the moment? You have already expressed the opinion that you do not wish to have the material here, so choosing to cite the statements of Roger and David, while ignoring that of fellow Arb Cool Hand Luke, your action may be viewed as less than impartial. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Roger and David are the drafting arbitrators on this case; as I see it, that gives them final decision as to what is and is not out of scope for this case. They have determined it is out of scope both here and in emails to me, and so I've moved it to a case where it is within scope. If you feel that Prioryman's actions are deserving of sanction, you are far more likely to get that in the other case, not here, where only Cirt and Jayen are named parties. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was (obviously) not aware of those emails and was only going by what was publicly available. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, although you weren't missing much. The emails are quite similar to what was posted above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the section over for me. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I really do try to help :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence extension

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

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

Since this case is linked to the "manipulation of BLPs" case it seems like it should be kept open until the other case is also complete. For example if that case is supposed to concern LaRouche and Scientology related feuding, as Roger Davies now informs us, then material on that issue which concerns Cirt or Jayen466 would have to be added to this case, not that case because neither of them is a party to it. Or do I misunderstand how the cases are related?   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This case is extended more than plenty - the User:Cirt has requested and been granted a weeks extension and if he fails to post in that time the case will move to workshop and closure. Whatever the related issues - it has become quite clear that evidence and weight of discussion in this case is focused on User:Cirt's repeated long term policy violations, including editing in support of off wiki campaigns and User:Cirt's WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations of a period of years without end. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush to finish this case. We haven't yet begun to look into Jayen's activities, which are important factors in what now appears to be the scope of the "Manipulation of BLPs" case. So if he's a party to this case but not that case then where do we put evidence regarding him?   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add evidence to this case to support that then please get on with it, time is already over the standard limit. - if your evidence is moved from this arbitration to the other then at least you will have posted it at one location. IMO this case is going to follow standard time format apart from the User:Cirt's one week request for extension. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC

I've been asking for a month for the ArbCom to clarify the scope of these cases, and still don't understand them. If we exclude Cirt and Jayen466 from a case concerning feuding on Scientology and LaRouche then that makes no sense, since they have been the main players in those purported feuds.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

←I understand the concern about the overlap between the cases, but if something directly deals with Cirt and Jayen it should go here. The intention of excluding them from the other case was I believe a well-intentioned attempt to avoid a double jeopardy issue; while I understand and certainly sympathize with issues over the nebulousness of the BLP case, the point is not to put the same people on trial again and again. In any case I imagine any sanctions in this case would have effects on other possible ones. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, that directly contradicts what Roger stated last month, when he wrote something along the lines of: material that is related to Cirt/Scientology that also might be evidence of users POV pushing on BLPs can be used as evidence in both cases. Am I recalling incorrectly, or did something change in the meantime? NW (Talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't really. The point is that we don't want Cirt and Jayen facing the same accusations in two cases so evidence relating to multiple editors (say, Cirt and Jayen, and others) may need editing to avoid duplication.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess I was misremembering. Thanks for the clarification. NW (Talk) 17:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand the scope of the "manipulation of BLP" case. However, if that case ever gets going I might want to add evidence regarding Jayen466. I assume that will be permitted.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, anything relating to Cirt and/or Jayen's conduct should be here. Pretty much anything else should go there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying so, but that doesn't make any sense. We don't even know what will be covered in the "Manipulation of BLP" case, so to say that any relevant evidence has to be brought here first would require a crystal ball. Maybe the cases should be merged back.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to take a stab at clarifying the scope if a mere second-class person may do so.

1. Any evidence concerning Cirt's behavior which seeks to prove that he should or should not be sanctioned goes here.

2. Any evidence concerning Jayen's behavior which seeks to prove that he should or should not be sanctioned goes here.

3. Any evidence concerning Cirt and Jayen's interactions with each other which seeks to prove one or the other should or should not be sanctioned goes here.

4. Any evidence concerning another users behavior which is used as background information or in conjunction with other evidence which seeks to prove Cirt or Jayen should or should not be sanctioned goes here.

5. Any evidence concerning another user's behavior (about BLP's) which seeks to prove that he should or should not be sanctioned goes in the other case.

6. Any evidence concerning Cirt or Jayen's behavior which is used as background information or in conjuntion with other evidence which seeks to prove another user should or should not be sanctioned goes in the other case.

Basically, any attempt to sanction Cirt or Jayen goes here. Any attempt to get anyone else sanctioned goes over there. If you MUST bring up other 3rd parties in your attempt to get someone sanctioned, it should be clear that that info directly correlates to the person you are attempting to get sanctioned in any case. This can and likely will lead to a duplication of evidence in both cases due to the overlap of concerns, and that is ok. However, Cirt and Jayen will face sanctions only here while others will face sanctions only in the other case. It would be unfair to sanction anyone twice for the same acts in parallel cases.

Am I in the ballpark here? 173.181.85.26 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know - that's for the ArbCom to decide and they've been AWOL on this issue. However the point of arbitration isn't sanctions, it's dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, so quick addition,

7. Any evidence that seeks to prove that there is an inherent flaw or failure in 'the system' concerning BLP's and/or tightly knit organisations represented on Wikipedia such as recent religious movements and suggestions on how to fix the problems goes in the other case.

Yes, it is true the point of arbitration is dispute resolution but the result is often sanctions. Also usually the goal of evidence is sanctions so I was drawing it from that perspective. Exceptions are always lurking.173.181.85.26 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is what the ArbCom agrees to I hope they will say so quickly. If this case closes before the other case really starts then it is inevitable that evidence about Jayen will be added to the other case. Splitting the cases really seems to make no sense, and if it takes a seven-part guide to decide which case to add evidence to then that's an indication of the problem.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The interpretation posted by the IP address editor is accurate, and exactly follows what I will be enforcing as case clerk. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Could the Arbcom please formalize this? So long as both cases are kept open simultaneously, this could work, though it's complicated. But it's unfair to parties of the second case, which has an unclear scope, to tell them they have to figure out which "manipulation of BLP" issues will come up in that case when no significant evidence has yet been added there.   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine this thread perfectly encapsulates the issue of the proposed public Arbcom discussion page. On the one hand, people are clearly stressed about this point and want to know what's going on from Arbcom's side. On the other hand, if the Arb's are having as much difficulty with it as the participants are, would it really be helpful to watch them argue about it before they announce the final answer? 173.181.85.26 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It would help to have the ArbCome discuss this to realize how absurd and counterproductive it is.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by RickK2

Moved from project page; RickK2 indefinitely blocked as an imposter

Current word length: 75; diff count: 2.

Cirt has signed OTRS tickets for his own uploads, and used his access to non-public OTRS information in arguing for the retention of copyright violations which he uploaded himself. "Smee" is Cirt's previous account. Here are some more uploads by Cirt which had to be deleted as copyright violations [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Anyone could make mistakes in uploading files, but that's precisely why Cirt should not be using his OTRS privileges to diminish third-party review of his uploads.

Due to curiosity, I verified the self-OTRS-approvals - there are others as well [16] - can I "adopt" this evidence? --Lexein (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Any editor eligible to participate in arbitration proceedings may submit evidence or proposals as they see fit. –xeno^talk 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's evidence

According to earlier statements by Arbs, Cirt was going to post their evidence by 15 August. It is now 16 August. Has ArbCom been in touch with Cirt? Is there a new timeline? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I wrote yesterday reminding them of the looming deadline. We haven't heard back yet.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Prioryman's evidence

User:Prioryman is posting here - it really is time to un-vanish him back to his prior account. He has prior arbitration that is related, he was along with the two named parties in this case, a named party in WP:ARBSCI and was sanctioned at that arbitration. I would like to officially request this. - Shall I ask at WP:ANI ? Is it a community decision for discussion ? His misleading and well, false comment at User:Cirt's RFC user that "I'm a newbie to this dispute (I only learned of it when it spilled onto DYK)". - Is just a devious false claim, and imo the same as sockpuppetry.Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To what end? –xeno^talk 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The user has lied and made false claims since his vanishing - he should be returned to his violating account so users are aware and able to investigate his prior edit history - either he should be returned to his account or his evidence should be removed - User:ChrisO blatantly lied in the RFC user Cirt case when he said as User:Prioryman - "I don't edit those articles and I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are (well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously)." - Total false representation - User:ChrisO's name is all over the Internet's anti-Scientology sites. He is one of the most famous and knowledgeable Scientology critics around. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The arbitrators active on this case are aware of the users' history. –xeno^talk 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So that makes it ok for the user to blatantly lie does it? No is the answer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that, but I don't see how your request has any direct bearing on the outcome of the present case. Perhaps you are in the wrong venue? You may wish to email the Committee and/or review or revive the previous discussion on this subject. –xeno^talk 19:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to email anyone, the committee is well aware that User:ChrisO - User:Prioryman is a liar, he has lied to them also. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is intended for discussion of the evidence on the attached project page. –xeno^talk 19:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, what part of the user that has posted evidence under the account User:Prioryman has lied on multiple occasions about his involvement in the topic area and has large previous involvement with the two named users in the case and a false vanish account not relate to his posting evidence here.Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your statement. I note that Prioryman is listed as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Please limit your participation on this page to discussion of the evidence presented on the attached project page. –xeno^talk 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My statement is absolutely clear, ask me what you don't understand and I will focus it for you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the evidence itself, or the presenter of the evidence? Do you feel the presenter of the evidence is not eligible to participate in arbitration proceedings? –xeno^talk 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A lying violator should better be blocked than have the opportunity to post evidence in this case - I have not even read the violators so called evidence - and why should I - they are a confirmed devious liar. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. I will leave this for the clerks or drafting arbitrators to follow-up, as I am listed as inactive on this case. Please see my comments below, at 20:18. –xeno^talk 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did he acknowledge that he is ChrisO? I haven't been following this case but I have an interest in abuse of "clean start," ScottyBerg (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well your in the right place with User:ChrisO is now User:Prioryman - the previous account is not in dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering how the relationship was determined. Did he admit it somewhere? If it's O/T, perhaps you could drop a note on my talk page if you have a chance. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, this thread seems to be a significant re-visiting of the issues that were already addressed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Evidence#Prioryman- the bigger picture, a thread in which you participated. Therein, it is noted that any evidence or proposals related to Prioryman should be posted to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, in which he is named as a party.

Participation on this page should be limited to discussing the actual evidence presented on the attached project page. –xeno^talk 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• The appropriate response to Prioryman's evidence is to link to (which I cannot locate) the previous ArbCom finding that, "Off-wiki comments are generally unsanctionable." That's it. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between off-Wiki remarks, and an extended campaign devoted to getting an editor banned from a topic.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Only evidence pertaining to Cirt and Jayen is allowed in this case and most of what Prioryman has presented has to do with Delicious Carbuncle. That Jayen has also participated in the same forum, and on similar topics doesn't change that fact, nor the fact that this is classic "guilt by association." While I do not see any kind of "extended campaign devoted to getting an editor banned form a topic," in any of Prioryman's evidence, I most certainly do not see any evidence of Jayen participating in any such campaign. Prioryman needs to be reminded of the scope of the case and asked to refactor his evidence accordingly.Griswaldo (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason why Delicious Carbuncle is not a party to this or the other case? The point being, if there is an allegation that users A, B, and C have worked together in an inappropriate way then why should that evidence be split between two different cases?   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As to this case, as was stated multiple times already, the only parties to this case are Cirt and Jayen. As to the other case, you're welcome to present evidence focusing more on Carbuncle's actions there. Prioryman's rewrite here does appear to focus mostly on Jayen. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Prioryman's claimed refocused evidence

The user has replaced the evidence but it is little changed and still says almost nothing about user Jayen and lots about DC. I clicked on all fourteen of the externals and found close to nothing about or posted by User:Jayen - The User:Prioryman's so called evidence still isn't focused enough to be worthy here - its still basically about User:DC. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive76#Delicious_carbuncle

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30246

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30256

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=31930

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32726

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32848

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33206

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33633

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=19be5198a52fbf5854e7c8743dd41618&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=HRIP7

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32726

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=af1bd2fe579659b114833d097a21bf27&showtopic=32726&view=findpost&p=267049

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=32726&view=findpost&p=267075

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=af1bd2fe579659b114833d097a21bf27&showtopic=32726&view=findpost&p=267152

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=f864b22b72669ca716f93b30107a90bf&showtopic=32848&view=findpost&p=267539

Only one of these posts fourteen diffs is by, or mentions User:Jayen? This one and its a simple post about the word limit in the case. Twelve of them are written by DC and the other is an internal to DC's editing restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, please could you reformat this mess? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have formatted them like this deliberately to expose the location of the externals. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for including those URLs is to show (1) the extent of the campaign, (2) Jayen466's participation in it, (3) the stated intent of the campaign, and (4) the improbability of Jayen466 being unaware of the stated intent. It is directly relevant to how Jayen466 has interacted with Cirt - an "interpersonal conduct issue arising between the two parties" as the statement of scope on the case page says. Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) ArbCom has referred to contributions on WR in the past, correctly or not, even if in those cases it did not directly relate to past, present or future editing on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And the issue of admissibility is explicitly addressed in Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment. Prioryman (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The evidence, as reformatted, appears to be worded such that it focuses primarily on Jayen's contribution to the WR threads. Some context about the origination of the threads, as well as the intentions of the users participating in them, is necessary to properly demonstrate Jayen's level of involvement. I believe that is the purpose in the first bullet point as well as the links provided there. I believe this evidence is now within scope and should not pose a problem to the case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this and for giving me the time to fix problems with my earlier evidence. Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This case is about User:Jayen and User:Cirt - the possibility that Prioryman or anyone present evidence in external diffs that is almost totally about an unnamed person in the case beggers belief. If I could direct the user, ...perhaps start ...user Jayen has off wiki hounded and harassed user cirt (add the diffs by Jayen doing that here) in an attempt to (add the claimed reason here) Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Hersfold (as a clerk in the case) - you say the evidence now ..."it focuses primarily on Jayen's contribution to the WR threads" - if you are correct then why is only one of the fourteen externals a comment from User Jayen? - For the evidence to have any worth here at all it should show wrongdoing by one of the parties in the case - apart from that - what is presented now says - and Jayen commented in threads that user DC said this in...? Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's false. Four of them are [17], [18], [19], [20] and one more is a search return for all of his posts in the Cirt subforum [21]. The rest are necessary for setting the context of Jayen466's involvement and the nature of the campaign in which he participated. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That statement is inaccurate. Looking here (permalink to ensure consistent numbering) I see that links 128-135 refer to Carbuncle's edits. 128 is a link to something about Carbuncle's ban, 129-131 are threads about Cirt started by Carbuncle, and 132-135 are the "monthly" threads referred to throughout the rest of the evidence. 137 is a repeat of 132, although comments following note that Jayen participated eight times in that thread. 138-141 all link directly to comments made by Jayen. You may be accurate in saying that more links refer to Carbuncle than to Jayen, however four is certainly more than one. I assume if one read through the entirety of the threads, one would find other posts made by Jayen that have not been directly linked to - the comments after 137 certainly seem to imply that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I chose not to link to everything that Jayen posted but included a link to WR's search function so that all of his posts in the Cirt subforum could be retrieved at a click, rather than making people wade through every thread in that sewer. Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No I am not reading the whole off wiki thread - if User Jayen has said something that violates anything then specifically direct to it. There is no dispute that User Jayen posts at wikipedia review - please link directly to the problematic posts by User Jayen. I am still not seeing any reason to link in this user Prioryman's evidence to twelve off wiki posts by a user not mentioned in the case. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• - @Hersfold - your claim that 138 - 141 138-141 all link directly to comments made by Jayen are false - here they are

• 138 - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32726&st=0&p=267049&#entry267049

• 139 - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32726&st=0&p=267075&#entry267075

• 140 - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32726&st=0&p=267152&#entry267152

• 141 - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32848&st=0&p=267539&#entry267539

As before - not a single one of these is from User Jayen - this evidence is false and of no value, anyone that looks at it will reject it. If User Jayen has posted any violating off wiki harassing attacking posts then link to them - or stop wasting readers time. This is the single post in user Prioryman's evidence that is from User:Jayen. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that there's a browser issue with the links? When I click on them I'm directed to posts by "HRIP7"--Cube lurker (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(added) Specifically the links for me scroll to posts: #10, #12, #15 & #5 respectively.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As am I. Unless you're saying that Prioryman is incorrect in noting that HRIP7 == Jayen, then the problem appears to be on your end. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob if you click the necessary links you'll see they are one and the same.Griswaldo (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• - Perhaps there is - please post the comments (cut and copy) and the diffs that are from User Jayen,. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Go to (for example) [22]. Look in the left hand column for "HRIP7". Look under the image. Click on any of the links to "WP user page - talk - check - contribs". Do you see it now? Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• - http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32726&st=0&p=267049&#entry267049

this diff for example links for me to a post from someone called carbuncle saying "I am intending to do a monthly thread here about Cirt's Scientology edits, because I would like to help them kick their nasty habit. Cirt, I don't say this in a mean way, but when you edit articles related to Scientology, it makes your fingers and breath smell like Scientology. And no one wants to kiss someone whose breath smells like Scientology. " - Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how to cut and paste from that forum and keep the formatting, did you try to manualy scroll down to posts posts #10, #12, #15 in the thread the first three links take you to and post #5 in the thread the fourth takes you to? You're being directed to the top of the correct page, but it's not scrolling down to the right post.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To create a permanent link to a post, look at the top right of each post for "Post #11" or whatever. Click on that number and you'll get a popup box with a permanent URL you can copy and paste. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• - This evidence presented by User Prioryman is worthless - User Jayen commented in wiki review threads about user Cirts contributions, this is not disputed - (add violating attacking posts by User Jayen here otherwise this evidence is unworthy of presenting to anyone) - Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone is free to add any relevant evidence to this case. The evidence has been ruled in scope by a clerk and its worth can be judged by the arbitrators. I respectfully suggest you leave it to them to decide what weight, if any, to give it. Prioryman (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - indeed - my commenting here has been to point out and assist readers as the the value or lack of value to your evidence. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of unsubstantiated "evidence"

I've asked two arbs to remove the unsubstantiated claims made by Prioryman about Jayen's motivations as they are not backed by any diffs or outside links, and since there is a a precedent to remove evidence without diffs. Such evidence, I'm told, may constitute a personal attack and is not allowed in arbitration cases. The relevant sections are the last two bullet points in Prioryman's evidence.Griswaldo (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've shortened the evidence to take out speculative elements. Prioryman (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, way to go over the clerk's head here. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - Wow - way to go. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No offense meant by that. I went to the people who were policing that particular issue already in the related case. I have no idea who it is normally best to ask these things of. If you wish to deal with it then please do. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, that wasn't really an appropriate response. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way wasn't it appropriate? - too gushing? too sycophantic? Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Prioryman. Your evidence still contains speculation. Example (in italics):

• "To the best of my knowledge, at no point did Jayen466 dispute any of those edits or articles or use any dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia concerning any of those articles."
• "By contributing to this campaign, Jayen466 engaged in Wikihounding and off-wiki harassment. He did not instigate the campaign, 'but had every reason to know what DC's intentions were in starting it."

"To the best of my knowledge," is by definition a preface to speculation. So is claiming that he had every reason to know someone else's intentions -- intentions which themselves you don't know and are speculating about.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not speculation. It's a statement of the facts as I understand them and an indication of the limits of my knowledge. Unlike certain people around here I do not obsessively go through other editors' contributions in an attempt to spring a "gotcha" on them. I said "to the best of my knowledge" to indicate that my knowledge may be incomplete, though I am sure someone here would have mentioned prior dispute resolution if it had happened. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As you will, I don't agree and hope that others see the problem with that idea. I believe that this has been broached before, btw, and that your knowledge is indeed incomplete. You may wish to ask Jayen before you make speculative statements "to the best of your knowledge." And what about the second point about Jayen having every reason to know the intentions of Delicious Carbuncle?Griswaldo (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd already removed the second point; I guess you didn't catch that change. Prioryman (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I missed that. Too much happening too fast. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may suggest, there is a section on the Workshop for "Analysis of evidence". Prioryman could post an interpretation of his own evidence there, and that interpretation could be discussed by others. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could but I don't really see why it would be necessary, to be honest. The evidence speaks for itself. Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)