Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:02, 31 August 2011

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Query about duration

Hiya, asking a question as an uninvolved admin. On the proposed remedies, I'm not seeing anything about duration. I have no opinion one way or the other, but am seeking clarity: Are these intended to be indefinite bans, only to be changed upon appeal to ArbCom? Or do they have an expiration date? Whichever ArbCom intends, it might be best to spell things out. --Elonka 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions for prior examples. When no duration is mentioned, as has been the custom in recent cases, topic bans are understood to be indefinite. Jehochman 13:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman's understanding is correct. After an appropriate period has elapsed, a request to lift or modify a restriction may be posted on the Requests for amendment page. (In some recent cases, we have provided more specifics about how much time should pass before any amendment request is made and what sort of factors we take into account in evaluating such requests, which in general are more or less what common sense suggests they would be, such as good editing in other areas of the project.) In this case, I would think that Cirt should plan to spend a very significant period of time working on other areas of the project before he even considers making any such request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

too broad a proposal

• - 3.3.2 Cirt restricted for all non-NRM BLPs is too broad a proposal

• - Request to the committee

With it looking likely with two opposes to the broad BLP editing restriction please consider voting on my proposal instead - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop#User:Cirt is banned from_editing WP:BLP articles of politicians (broadly construed) - there has been clear evidence of editing violations presented on the evidence page in regards to multiple BLP articles in this sector. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The all-BLP restriction is too broad and is effectively a site ban. A ban on editing BLPs of politicians makes sense. Tangential mentions of politicians in other articles should not be included. Jehochman 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have wording in mind for a more tailored alternate proposal regarding "non-NRM BLPs" in case the decision is to take that course. (As you will have seen, I've asked on the proposed decision if other arbs want to move in that direction.) The input in this thread and on the workshop is helpful in this regard, so thank you all for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A more limited ban would be acceptable as a remedy as well; if Brad doesn't get to it I'll offer one as well based on sentiment on the decision page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the application of this remedy Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision#Cirt_topic-banned_from_new_religious_movement_.28.22NRM.22.29_articles, and will of course abide by it. However, I agree with this comment by Newyorkbrad at remedy Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision#Cirt_restricted_for_all_non-NRM_BLPs. I agree particularly where Newyorkbrad states: this proposal is too broad and would effectively ban Cirt from editing any article except perhaps for ones concerning purely abstract concepts. Newyorkbrad notes an important point: For example, Cirt sometimes writes articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases. If he writes "in 2010, Jones sued Smith, and the case reached the Supreme Court, where the opinion was written by Justice Scalia," he has mentioned three living people, and all three mentions are "within the scope of the BLP policy" although all three are incidental and harmless. This sort of remedy is too broad, and would likely be stretched by a few users to effectively ban me from editing any article or page on Misplaced Pages. — Cirt (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Cirt, while not perfect, has been dogged by several editors who do not necessarily have Misplaced Pages's interests at the top of their agendas. Whatever restrictions are placed must be clearly defined and reasonable in scope. Jehochman 17:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I am inactive for this particular case, so will comment here. I find the wording and the intention of the interaction ban between Cirt and Jayen466 to be quite concerning, and to have the effect of sanctioning one of the few editors who failed to bow to the masterful use of every process within the project to separate Cirt from his critics, including regular noticeboard postings, COI and SPA allegations, blocks, SPIs, sudden warnings from Cirt-friendly admins otherwise uninvolved in the articles in question, RFCs, and now arbitration remedies. Jayen466 has been the one person who's weathered it through all of the other "discipline" and stuck it out to bring a problematic editor to arbitration. Sanctioning him for having the fortitude to do what everyone else has given up on seems to send the message "Hold Cirt to community standards, and you'll be on the receiving end of sanctions yourself." It's clear from the current votes, and Cirt's own admissions, that his editing in many areas of the project has been a longstanding problem. That other editors backed off or decided not to invest significant time and energy into addressing the issues with Cirt's editing does not mean that the problem was any less significant, only that people don't want to spend their time on frustrating and unpleasant tasks where they need to constantly defend themselves.

Should Jayen466 wind down the rhetoric occasionally? Possibly, and the simple fact of proposing a finding related to this is sufficient, whether or not it even passes. But we should not be applying arbitration-level sanctions to editors who stick it out through difficult cases to curtail seriously problematic editing in one of our most critical areas. Risker (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see anything particularly problematic with Jayen's involvement. There are others who's interacts with Cirt causes me concern. Jehochman 20:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you see that Jayen's behavior has not been problematic, but keep in mind that other people have not been so kind (and continue not to be in fact, see Shell's statement below). Jayen took the brunt of the accusations about wikistalking and harassment since the beginning of the RfC. If I were him I would have run screaming for the mountains a long time ago. Should anyone investigate people for harassing Cirt, as Jehochman suggests below, they ought to also take into consideration the down right abusive behavior directed towards Jayen by those who did not agree with him. Of course, we should all keep in mind that only Cirt and Jayen are parties to this particular case. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466's behavior went way beyond simply holding someone to account. Creating an essay attacking an editor over a non-existent SEO issue is not a normal dispute resolution method, and it should not be repeated ever. It's my understanding that, on Misplaced Pages Review, he asked for the Wikileaker to disclose confidential ArbCom files about Cirt. That is not the way to make sure policies are being enforced. This is clearly a personal issue between them that goes far beyond what inter-editor relations should be like.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Jayen wrote that essay in good faith, believing the SEO issue was quite serious. It is also my understanding that he has admitted to having been hasty in writing it and that it wasn't perhaps the best idea. But I'll let him speak for himself on that. I have no clue about this other accusation that you are leveling against him, but it sounds like a whole lot of the same hocus pocus I've been hearing all along. The word Misplaced Pages Review gets trotted out anytime someone needs to be demonized, without any evidence of actually malicious activity over there. Oh and also, pot, kettle and all that.Griswaldo (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker, for your astute observation. I would go further and say that the Committee probably should post a finding thanking Jayen for sticking with dispute resolution in spite of all the bullying and persecution he received for it, one good example being Will Beback's post in this very thread. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What this decision teaches us

• If less than 1% of your edits over several years are mistakes/problems, you will be treated harshly.
• No matter if you harass someone for years, curse at them, use dispute resolution inappropriately, repeatedly make claims that turn out to be untrue and even ask a hacker for private information on another editor - as long as there is a shred of truth to your claims, its all good.

This is very disappointing . Shell 18:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice of the "hacker" to tell us about this alleged non-public request for information, among many. Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If there's doubt whether he's correct or not someone could ask Jayen466.   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. I just don't know why Shell takes this as gospel when she knows, for example, that Iridescent was falsely implicated by Malice. Cool Hand Luke 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated on my user page, HRIP7 is my account on WR, and I did advise Malice of Cirt’s previous user names, and previous arbitrations.

• At the time, arbcom had appeared most reluctant to clarify whether Cirt's mainspace editing was within the the scope of this present case at all. This case was originally framed as a question of personal conduct and interpersonal relationships.
• Raul654, Misplaced Pages's FA director, had expressed the view that my complaints in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cirt were "wholly without merit", that the RfC was "full of provably false statements and invalid charges", and that I should be sanctioned for filing it.
• The previous leak of the e-mail conversation between SlimVirgin, Cirt and Shell Kinney had shown that Cirt had been economical with the truth about how he came to write the Corbin Fisher article (i.e. at the personal suggestion of that company's lawyer), and that Shell, then an arbitrator, and now back out of retirement only to comment here, did not seem to care. Her return to editing now seems ample evidence that she should have recused, as SlimVirgin suggested at the time.
• The RfC was haunted by Cirt's friend User:ChrisO (whom we all last remembered as having invoked the right to vanish) during the Climate Change case), posting as User:Prioryman, and being equally economical with the truth about his prior involvement with the topic area – his writings about Hubbard and Scientology are all over the Internet, he was a sanctioned party in ARBSCI, and yet he claimed that he didn't have the faintest idea what any of the RfC was about, representing himself as a casual DYK bystander.
• I and the community had just learned (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_9#Official_Comment_requested) that the Committee had been aware of Prioryman's identity all along, that it had stonewalled previous enquiries about it, that it had actively enabled his return, that Roger, one of the drafting arbitrators on this case, had personally unblocked him last December, and that the Committee had chosen to do nothing to make the community aware of who the person posting all the invective at the RfC/U was, and would never have disclosed it of their own accord. I thought the Committee knew that User:Helatrobus was ChrisO, and was happy to let that sleeping dog lie, but knowing that you did nothing with regard to the Prioryman account's actions was a bitter pill to swallow.

To summarise, I felt a distinct lack of support from the Committee, given the objective problems with Cirt's editing, which I am glad to see the Committee has now finally acknowledged in the Proposed decision. This was disturbing. My concerns were amplified by my knowledge that anyone who had ever complained about Cirt's editing during the past five years had either been sanctioned or driven off this project, and I viewed a similar outcome in this case – an interaction ban for myself and Cirt, and a finding that nothing Cirt did in his mainspace editing rose to the level of sanctionable behaviour – a distinct likelihood. That is why I was interested in reading your private discussions about Cirt before this present case would come to its conclusion, rather than after it. The information had been requested anyway, and I provided the – publicly available – information Risker mentions above to the leaker, as that would bump the relevant leaks up the schedule. To be clear, I was not interested in learning anything new about Cirt, but in learning something new about the Committee, because I found the behaviour of the Committee and large parts of the admin corps incomprehensible.

As it was, my worst suspicions reading the Committee were disconfirmed by reading the Committee's COFS and ARBSCI deliberations. I was glad that I read them, because it enabled me to put those suspicions aside. Those matters that I did take issue with I raised with Roger on-wiki (User_talk:Roger_Davies/Archive_23#Tommy_Davis_BLP). The proposed sanctions against Cirt in this case seem a welcome departure from past practice. So, with the benefit of hindsight, I mistrusted the Committee more than I should have, and apologise for having wanted to pry into your private conversations concerning Cirt. I confess to feeling a pang of shame about it – although that shame is tempered by the knowledge that Misplaced Pages should feel no less ashamed for enabling a high-profile editor to use this project for political manipulation and vile attacks on a whole host of living persons for so long. Regards, --JN466 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing

I would like to see a finding about the on- and off- site harassment Cirt has endured over the years.

• Cirt has been under harassment for quite some time. His Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cirt was a horrific example of disruptive socking. 6 of 49 opposes were stricken as checkuser confirmed socks, and there were others suspected but not confirmed. Please ask Rlevse and WJBScribe for their opinions of what happened there.
• Cirt has been the subject of substantial off-wiki discussion by WikipediaReview contributors, and that there is a subforum on WikipediaReview dedicated to Cirt, where much of the discussion is negative and insulting. I won't link to or repeat the slanders.

I think this is relevant context. Jehochman 18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy that Cirt didn't choose to defend himself, and I'm not too interested in acting as somebody else's wikilawyer. Nevertheless, the Committee should think carefully whether what they are doing here is just, or whether they have been manipulated by the one-side evidence presented in this case against an editor who seems to have been become very tired of the ordeal. Jehochman 18:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect was any compelling on or off wiki evidence ever presented about such stalking or harassment? If the Arbs are to look into this carefully they should look into the entire situation, because over at the RfC everyone who supported Cirt appeared to take a turn at calling the rest of us harassers, wikistalkers, lynch mobs and/or bloodthirsty people otherwise out on a witch-hunt (those are not my exaggerations but their words). If this gets serious attention then I think it ought to be done with full acknowledgement that WP:BOOMERANG is also a possibility. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a difficult situation where legitimate concerns were intermingled with score settling and provocation -- on both sides. Jehochman 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to the Arbs, we need to keep in mind that the only two editors' whose behavior is within the scope of the case are Jayen and Cirt. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Cirt ought to have told the entire story, start to finish, the good and the bad. Nevertheless, arbitrators are pretty clueful and generally know the backstory for persistent conflicts, or should probe for material that is missing from the evidence. Jehochman 20:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very hard to do that without the discussions on the ArbCom pages degenerating into big fights with the predictable results. Cirt did the right thing, and if the ArbCom decision isn't ok. then that means that the ArbCom system should be modified. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

I think it's fascinating to compare and contrast the comments above by Risker and Shell Kinney. About as diametrically opposite as one can get.

I realize that the PD is still a work in progress, but I'd suggest going back and re-reading the Workshop before finalizing the Proposed remedies section. There's a lot of guidance there about fitting the remedies to the scope, that I think is being given short shrift here, and you really need to get it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Blind men and an elephant. Jehochman 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tryptofish, perhaps it is because we have put weight on different aspects of the situation. Cirt has, through his various identities, been a problematic editor since before I joined the project. He became an administrator after a brief period of comparatively good behaviour, under circumstances that were deliberately designed to invoke considerable sympathy for him. I do not doubt whatever that certain groups found his work on Misplaced Pages to be not to their taste, and I do not question the notion that he was harassed off-wiki by members of those groups. That does not excuse in any way his BLP editing methods, which are actually very consistent from article to article. Simply because nobody raises complaints about every single one does not mean that there were no problems with the edits: it means that most people stopped complaining about Cirt's editing because they wound up being taken to one or more noticeboards, had an admin randomly show up on their talk page, had an RFC started about their editing or an SPI filed about them — or had witnessed it happening to others, and just turned away. Some editors who specialize in ensuring neutrality and appropriateness in BLPs and BLP-related information could spend a very long time reviewing the work here, just as other editors have spent a lot of time reviewing a single, proliferate editor's articles for copyvio issues. I note that at least one of the editors who had initially suggested an interaction ban, Cbrick77, withdrew that request after it became clear that there has actually been quite little interaction between the two of them. Risker (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"under circumstances that were deliberately designed to invoke considerable sympathy for him" - Whether or not this is actually the case, comments like these give a strong appearance of bias in this case. Your other comments make it seem that you are relying less on actual diffs and reading the disputes you refer to and more on hearsay from buddies; your opinion seems misinformed and strongly one-sided. The idea that if there was little interaction between Jayen and Cirt it follows that there is no problem is a logical fallacy. Perhaps you could you explain to the peanut gallery why complaints that a contributor (Jayen) was asking for confidential/private discussions about another editor (Cirt) didn't figure in to the case or even merit a response from ArbCom? That is the elephant in the room. Shell 22:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Shell, I'm not voting on this case, so any bias you might think exists is irrelevant. And what I see from the WR thread that you're presumably referring to is an allegation that an editor that someone else has identified as Jayen may or may not have provided publicly available information about Cirt, not that he requested non-public information about Cirt.(That would be this information here: , Scientology, Hunger, COFS) I tend to believe about 10% of what I read on Misplaced Pages Review, myself, particularly when it comes to what people say about each other over there, and would hardly consider any of it a reliable source. Stupid, perhaps. Possibly worth a finding (if I was voting, I'd probably support one). Not an Arbcom sanction. There's a certain leap of logic in the current voting in that arbitrators who do not feel Jayen466's actions are even worthy of a finding are still sanctionable; that disconnection boggles me. I've read a lot of articles for which Cirt has been the primary editor; many are very good, but in certain topic areas he seems to have a real problem. Risker (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Risker, that's OK, you really don't need to justify what you said to me. My biggest concern is that the remedies proposed by your colleagues are being slapped together a bit too quickly and with a bit too much desire to just get it over with. My pointing to you and Shell is just that, as you say, you see things from such different perspectives, and thus, your colleagues may want to take care with the details, because this is a case where one has to pay attention to perspective. Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing Jayen saying that he would be fine with an interaction ban. I don't think an interaction ban is a finding that anyone is "bad", only that they could better devote their energies elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet an interaction ban does send the message that if you dare to take Cirt to task you will be sanctioned. Perhaps you missed all of my evidence about that very problem. And Shell, I hate using the pot, kettle thing more than once on this page, but some of us, who think your characterization above is way off base, may smell a different kind of bias. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Taking someone to task" is different from hounding them for years, and seeking confidential information about them.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Will Beback, that you're proving my point. If a user edits problematically for years, then pointing that out over an extended period is not hounding. And I've yet to see evidence of Jayen466 requesting confidential information about anyone. Risker (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence#Jayen466.27s_involvement_in_off-wiki_harassment_of_Cirt

] I may be in the minority here, but I think anyone participating in the WR threads devoted to attacking editors loses the presumption of good faith. It's impossible to treat people as friends and colleagues if they are engaged in badmouthing elsewhere. Dispute resolution should occur on Misplaced Pages, not by fomenting and canvassing opponents off-Wiki. And creating essays for the purpose of attacking one editor's work is a bad precedent which, if followed, could degrade the collegiality and DR processes. It's possible to go too far, even when trying to correct problems. We should not adopt an attitude that "the ends justify the means" when it comes to behavior on Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Majorities

There's a little box near the top of the main page that says 7 support votes are needed for a motion to pass, and there's a big colourful box near the bottom where calculations seem to have been made on the basis of 6 support votes being needed. Am I misreading things or is one of these wrong? 87.254.77.167 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this. One of the arbitrators moved from inactive to active today, thereby changing the numbers. The Clerk will update the calculations when he has a chance so that everything matches up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Doing it now. Sorry, I've been away from a computer where I could access Misplaced Pages all day. Hersfold 00:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)