Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk 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, 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.

Active:

1. Casliber
2. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
3. Cool Hand Luke
4. Coren
5. David Fuchs
6. Elen of the Roads
7. Jclemens
8. John Vandenberg
9. Kirill Lokshin
10. Mailer diablo
11. Newyorkbrad
12. Roger Davies
13. SirFozzie
14. Xeno

Inactive:

1. Iridescent
2. Risker

Recused

1. PhilKnight

See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs#Scope.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

So the scope of this case is

1. to examine partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs

2. to examine what practical steps can be taken to reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs

3. to examine the implications of search engine optimisation for Wikipedia

4. and to examine the relevant conduct guidelines.

Really? You're not going to sanction anyone for partisan feuding and POV pushing in BLPs? I mean, it's not as though the guidelines for such articles don't already exist. And it's not as though Arbcom has never dealt with BLP problems before. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] And those are just what I found from 2006 and 2007 when I was an active clerk. I'm sure there are more.

Now, I realize that I have not been active in some time and that many things may have changed, so I don't want to be putting my foot in my mouth here out of ignorance. But I recall a whole alphabet soup of policies dealing with partisan feuding/point-of-view pushing in BLPs. And without intending to sound like a Javert, let me suggest that the practical step to take to "reduce polarised edit-warring and partisan feuding in BLPs" is to enforce the policies. So really, this case seems to me to be very simple.

4. (they already exist)

3. (irrelevant, except to the extent that it reinforces the need for #4)

2. blocks, bans, probation and desysopping, liberally applied, until people get the message.

You need to modify the first clause of your statement of scope.

Otherwise this exercise is likely to be a profound waste of time. Thatcher 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The likelihood of sanctions is implicit, I think. If there is evidence of substantive, actionable violations of policy, then appropriate sanctions will obviously be considered. I don't think it's necessary to specify this explicitly when outlining the scope of the case; it should be sufficient, for example, to define a case as concerning "the conduct of editor X", and unnecessary to expand it to "the conduct of editor X, who will be banned if the allegations turn out to be correct".

(If your comment is about the poor choice of using the word "purpose" in what should be a description of the scope, incidentally, then I completely agree with you. The "purpose" of an arbitration case is always the same: to resolve the dispute at hand [by any means necessary]. It's merely the nature of the dispute that we're trying to describe here.) Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which BLPs are supposed to have been manipulated, and which previous dispute resolution efforts led to this case? How did the ArbCom decide on the current list of parties?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There are a number of BLPs listed in various statements made as part of the original case request; it is my understanding that manipulation by various parties to the case is alleged to have taken place on some or all of these articles. Whether these allegations have any substance to them will, of course, be one of the questions to be examined in the course of the proceeding.

The relevant past dispute resolution is the same as for the Cirt and Jayen466 case, as this proceeding arises from the same underlying nexus of disputes, and was split from that one for organizational purposes.

The list of parties is derived entirely from the list present in the original case request. As far as I know, there has been no determination made, at this stage, as to whether each of the listed editors should or will remain a party as the case proceeds; I expect that we will do so in the coming days, based both on requests by listed individuals to be removed (or by non-listed individuals to be added) as well as the nature of the evidence presented. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Kiril, I definitely got the impression that this was a general fact-finding investigation, from the inclusion of clauses #2, #3 and #4. If you want to investigate and possibly discipline particular editors, name those editors and ask for evidence for and against them. (If there are many, possibly restructure the evidence page, but I digress.) The existence of policies is not debatable and the implications of SEO are irrelevant (is POV-pushing in a BLP acceptable so long as Google doesn't notice it? I thought not.) I don't understand the emphasis on "examining" new ways of clarifying the policies and new ways of ensuring they are followed. Thatcher 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Following on Will's apparent concern, you may need to do something different here, similar to an indictment phase and a trial phase. Take preliminary evidence and do an expedited review before determining which cases will proceed to a full hearing. Thatcher 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Well, I'm certainly open to something along those lines, although I'm not sure what the best way of organizing it would be. How would we limit the amount of "preliminary" evidence submitted, to avoid essentially rolling all of the cases back into this one regardless? Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Kiril, the only BLP mentioned in the original case request that I can find that is unrelated to Cirt and Jayen466 is Bernard Lewinsky, about which there has been little dispute. Which BLPs do you think have these purported disputes that we're here to resolve?   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Well, maybe there's some confusion here. It's my understanding that BLPs "related" to Cirt and Jayen466 will remain a valid topic in this case; it's only the conduct of those two editors in particular which is being considered elsewhere, and edits to those articles (or in relation to them) by any other editor will be examined here. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • What disputes have been described that are independent of the activities of those two editors? Most of those biographies are related to Scientology. If those are what the ArbCom wants to look at maybe this should be retitled as "ArbSci 2" or something like that. Also, the list of parties should be narrowed down to those who actually have had a significant involvement in the BLPs in question.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I don't necessarily disagree with you; but the only way we really have of determining which of the parties have had significant involvement in the disputes in question is to open up the floor to evidence regarding their involvement (or lack thereof). It's not a though we have a prosecutor who's going to assemble a coherent case prior to it coming before us.

        If anything, I'd tend to lean towards Thatcher's suggestion of a two-stage process, with the the first stage serving as a preliminary hearing to determine the parties to the second stage; but even that's probably not an ideal solution. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 00:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

        • So the ArbCom opened a case in which it doesn't know which disputes and which editors are included? It's just a free-for-all potentially involving virtually every active editor, including all sitting Arbs. Like Thatcher says, this case seems to be proceeding without a clear reason or dispute to settle. This is unprecedented.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Let's start with a couple of premises.

• 1. Omnibus cases are almost universally disastrous wastes of time that solve nothing.
• 2. Any problem with a politicized BLP that reaches Arbcom is going to involve one or more admins. Either an admin who is ineffective at keeping the problem editor(s) under control, or an admin who is directly responsible for keeping the article in a politicized and coatracked state, or an admin who always sides with the editors who are keeping the article in a coatracked state.

As such, any omnibus case you open is going to attract a lot of people who are after some admin's scalp (not all of them unjustified), and a lot of worried admins who will throw anything they can at the case page to defend themselves (not always justified). (I can't speak to the general principle that admins are a major problem with respect to coatracked BLPs, but anecdotally I do remember at least one incident involving an admin who was protecting an editor who was determined to keep a bio in an aggressively politicized state.) You will likely end up having to sort through allegations involving a dozen or more editors, many of whom will be, shall we say, highly invested in Wikipedia.

There are at least two things you could do--look at the problem generally, or sanction specific editors. I'm not sure this case, as currently constituted, is likely to do either of them well.

• 1. If you want to explore the general concept that some BLPs are kept in an inappropriately politicized state, sometimes with the assistance of certain admins, then I suggest the following: 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.
• 2. If you want to hold a typical case in which bad behavior is alleged, reviewed, and sanctioned, then you have missed a critical step. Every prosecution begins with a review of the evidence to see whether it is sufficient to bring to trial. In court this might be a Grand Jury or a preliminary hearing, on Wikipedia it is the listing of a request at RFAR. Arbcom reviews the allegations and decides whether or not to take the dispute to a full hearing. Here you have skipped that step. Two remedies spring immediately to mind; there may be others.

• 2.1. Close this case. Announce that you have taken notice of the community's concern that certain BLPs are being coatracked, and invite requests for Arbitration on the main page that are restricted to individual editors or topic areas. Review each request in the normal way.
• 2.2. Keep this case but create some kind of screening procedure. Possibly involving transcluded subpages like the Arbcom election page format or the old RFCU format. Each subpage will relate to a narrowly defined dispute. Allow limited submission of evidence and argument such as the main RFAR page. Eventually, vote on whether the particular dispute will be accepted into the main case. Disputes that are not accepted to be dismissed without prejudice. Disputes that are accepted will be taken to the main evidence and workshop pages. But you're still going to end up with a very diverse set of allegations and parties.

Just a thought. Thatcher 01:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I concur.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks Thatcher for suggesting a few ways forward. Option 1 is my preference. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Would you be willing to propose it as a motion?   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think this option makes sense. Whether or not it passes does anyone know how best to present a deleted article in evidence? Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I've proposed it as a motion Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Motion: scope of case. I hope the ArbCom will respond promptly.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Like John Vandenberg, I think option 1 is much closer to what we're looking at. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

We have a process like that already. It's called WP:BLPN. Go post concerns there and let the community deal with them. If something can't be resolved satisfactorily, request arbitration based upon a specific dispute with a compact set of named parties. As Thatcher said, it's a really bad idea to skip steps. Go back to square one and do it the right way: prior dispute resolution, a specific, active dispute, and clearly delineated list of parties. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't know the answer myself, but I suppose a relevant question would be to what extent has BLPN already failed to resolve issues here. I also think that the Committee ought to be careful about balancing the views in this discussion section against the many views already given by other editors in the request for arbitration (lest the decision making be buffeted by whatever concerns are expressed the most recently). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

BLPN is a location, not a process. It works quite well sometimes, not so well other times. Is it capable of discerning and dealing with SEO-like activities and evaluating good faith? I've never seen it take on such a case, but I don't watch it faithfully. Jclemens ( talk) 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which specific outstanding issues has BLPN failed to resolve that the ArbCom could resolve without engaging in policy writing? SEO issues are not covered in existing policies, except implicitly concerning promotion and soapboxing. If those policies are inadequate the ArbCom isn't the place to get them fixed. If they are being violated then that is a concern, then we should have definite examples.   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What's so special about SEO? If there's a page with somebody's name as the title in Wikipedia, that page will rank well. Has the committee suddenly discovered that Wikipedia has excellent search optimization? This is nothing new. We just need to apply existing policies correctly. WP:BLPN is a very good process, not just a place. The process is you report concerns about WP:BLP, and experienced editors help resolve the problem. If there is WP:BLP violating content, it has to be removed, whether or not somebody has introduced lots of links to the page. The excessive linking and use of menus would be considered an aggravating factor when we consider how to sanction the editor causing the problem. Such actions might confirm the deliberateness of a smear campaign. I don't see the value of the arbitration committee stepping in. Everything is already quite clear. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, in a series of questions posed to Cla68, asked the following: "Are you aware that Cirt has been the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign organized by WikipediaReview contributors, and that there is a subforum on WikipediaReview dedicated to smearing Cirt?". Leaving the usual questions of off-wiki "evidence" aside for the moment, I have concerns about the allegations made in this question. While it is true that there is a sub-forum of the Wikipedia Review "Editors" forum for discussing Cirt (actually a sub-forum of the sub-forum "Notable Editors"), I believe the moderators of that site routinely create sub-forums based on the number of threads dealing with a single editor. To state that this is "dedicated to smearing Cirt" is a rather strong allegation and I request that Jehochman replace the word "smearing" with the more neutral word "discussing".

The other allegation "that Cirt has been the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign organized by WikipediaReview contributors", should not be allowed to remain. I suspect that what Jehochman is trying to say is individual contributors on a public forum have on occasion made unfavourable remarks about Cirt or Cirt's editing, but Jehochman's choice of wording makes it read as though Wikipedia Review contributors have organized an internet harassment campaign against Cirt. I am unaware of any such campaign. Although Cirt's real-life identity has been the subject of speculation on Wikipedia Review, I recall that disclosure of their real-life identity was generally agreed to be undesirable. It is difficult to imagine how one could organize an internet campaign to harass someone who exists only on Wikipedia. Can someone please redact the first part of Jehochman's question and refactor the second? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think these concerns need to be put on the table, and I welcome DC's input regarding the nuances. The subforum on Wikipedia Review is not objective. It is overwhelmingly negative and contains a lot of unsubstantiated allegations of the type that would not be allowed on Wikipedia. I think "smear" is a fair summary of the conversations over there about Cirt. Editors are welcome to review the forum and draw their own conclusions about the tone of discussion there.

My own opinion is that Cirt's editing has had problems, which Cirt has just admitted. On the other hand, Cirt has been the victim of a smear, or harassment, campaign involving editors and banned editors posting comments on Wikipedia Review. This should be taken into account. Whether intentional or not, the effect of that forum is harassment. I suspect the ferocity of criticism against Cirt and the apprehension of many editors to get involved in this mudslingfest have been influenced by the forum.

Wikipedia should not rush to judgement based upon the popular impression created by a sensationalistic website (Wikipedia Review). Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, one can hardly expect that the contributors to a public forum discussing an individual will be "ojective". I suspect their comments will be very much "subjective" and reflect individual views of about the subject at hand. In a forum dealing with participants on a particular website (in this case Wikipedia), I would expect that many of the comments would be critical. What you stated was that the sub-forum was "dedicated to smearing Cirt", which says, in so many words, that its sole purpose is to "smear" someone. The description of the "Editors" forum on Wikipedia Review is "This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy.". While you may feel that Cirt is being smeared in that forum, the stated purpose is "discussion" and your question will mislead Wikipedia editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia Review except through comments such as yours. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

People should look at Wikipedia Review's Cirt forum and decide what they think about it. I think it's a smear campaign, but you are welcome to disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, is it your view that all discussions on that website about Wikipedia editors can be characterized as "smear campaigns" or that this particular one is different from the rest? It doesn't appear to me like Cirt's getting any special treatment on Wikipedia Review, which is why I'm asking. Griswaldo ( talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Jehochman I'm also curious what you think the motive is for smearing Cirt at Wikipedia Review. A smear campaign, is something that is done with the intent of maligning someone's reputation, and there is always a motive, usually a political one, though I'm open to the idea that it could be done simply for shits and giggles by people of low moral fiber and too much time on their hands. Is that what you think is happening, or do you know something else about the motives of the people at that website? What is the purpose of smearing Cirt there? Indeed, given how poorly Wikipedia Review seems to go over here on Wikipedia, I wonder how productive it is to ever try to smear someone over there. It seems like one's reputation on Wikipedia is not damaged, but instead is fortified by being criticized at Wikipedia Review. An enemy of my enemy ... and all that kind of stuff. I'm curious to know your thoughts on all this. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't know the motivation. Is it to relieve boredom? A desire to feel superior by putting somebody else down? Who knows except those who posted the content. I do not like when a group entertains itself by harassing somebody they perceive to be vulnerable. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, you are welcome to your opinion, but by stating it as fact you are making unsupported allegations. Although I have long asked that people not attempt to connect my Wikipedia account with any off-wiki accounts, Prioryman has attempted to single me out in connection with Wikipedia Review. Given that, I take your comments here quite seriously. I ask that you make the changes I have suggested above. Otherwise, I will ask the clerk to remove it. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The notable editor forums have the effect of smearing and harassing the named editors, not just Cirt. I am not going to post links here or quote the harassment. I've provide specific enough information for the Committee to look at the forums and evaluate what I've asserted. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I have asked the clerks to deal with it. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Upon reflection I changed my question in hopes of getting an actual answer, instead of a string of objections to the form of the question. Hopefully that also resolves your concerns. Let me know. I appreciate your thoughts. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Jehochman, that addresses all the concerns I had. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

DC, through the RfC/U I repeatedly raised the issue of your harassment of Cirt. In particular I quoted the following comment that you posted at the start of your monthly harassment thread on WR: "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." Would you care to explain what you meant by that? Prioryman ( talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If you choose, you can answer formally at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Question to Delicious Carbuncle from Prioryman. If you prefer to answer here I'll copy your answer over there so it can be part of the case record. Prioryman ( talk) 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You seem very interested in that particular paragraph. I think it is self-explanatory, but if you can be more specific about what part you are having trouble understanding, I will try to help you. If I choose to answer on the Workshop page, I will. Do not copy any of my statements made on this talk page to that page as they are not in answer to your question there. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Prioryman, did you want an answer to your question or not? If you do, you will have to be more specific about what it is you are asking. Given your lack of response here, I am wondering if you really do want an answer or if you were really just posing the question in an attempt to show me in a poor light... Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Meta comment: ArbCom, are you happy now that you opened this can of worms? Inviting people to revisit grievances via an omnibus anybody v. anybody case is not too smart. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I have to agree with Jehochman here, and as I already stated the issues concerning Prioryman didn't belong here to begin with. Now that he's "defending himself" he's having to do so by adding all kinds of other issues that are also irrelevant to BLP editing. This is where the hot potato landed I guess. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

BLP is serious stuff. If there have been problems at Santorum (neologism) or other pages, by all means invite the community to submit proper requests for arbitration based on concrete incidents and compact lists of parties. Your very best move is to dismiss this case and ask interested parties to refile and recycle and their relevant evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 11:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Um -- my evidence is specifically directed at the case as stated. Dismissing this case would be a de facto claim that there is no general problem regarding BLPs. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Not so. Dismissing the case would be an admission that the Committee screwed up. Looking at the evidence page I see a lot of disparate issues getting superficial treatment, nevermind all the irrelevant complaints, such as "Prioryman lied". Lying sucks, but that's not what this case is about. It would be more valuable to home in on a few solid examples of BLP violations that were unable to be solved by the community at lower levels of dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 11:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which means my evidence is meaningless then. Sorry, I disagree with your assertions. And note that there will be a great many BLP-related cases in future if it is not dealt with strongly now. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Disagreeing is good. Where would we be if everybody had the same opinion? Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I must confess I still don't know what this case is supposed to be about or what it is supposed to produce. I've submitted evidence about DC's conduct as advised by Hersfold, but other than tackling misconduct by other editors linked specifically to the Cirt-Jayen imbroglio what is this case supposed to do? Per Collect's comments, how exactly are BLP cases to be "dealt with strongly" if nobody seems to know which BLP cases are in the frame or what issues are being arbitrated? This really needs clarification. Prioryman ( talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which BLPs does your evidence show that I am manipulating? I'm just curious... Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 20:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Jamie Sorrentini. The (uninvolved) admins posting in the result section here called your actions "an egregious BLP violation for which DC should have been blocked at the time" (HJ Mitchell), "a deliberate BLP violation as a WP:POINT maneuvre" (Future Perfect) and a "WP:POINT disruption" (Elen of the Roads). You deliberately manipulated the BLP of an innocent third party, at the expense of the BLP subject, to make a point about another Wikipedian with whom you were in a dispute. That's the clearest possible example of the kind of abuse that this case appears to have been intended to address. Prioryman ( talk) 21:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Here are my edits to that article: one, two, three, and four. Note that last two are simply restoring the material added in the first two edits after it was removed by User:Cirt. As you can see, I noted that Sorrentini was a Scientologist sourced to a site that was in use on several other articles at the time. Although Cirt had themselves used that source to identify people as Scientologists, they reverted my changes with the extremely odd claim that there was no consensus to use the source. In subsequent discussion, it was agreed that the source was not reliable and all references were removed, but at the time there was no such consensus. What I should not have done is added Sorrentini to the category Category:American Scientologists. That was an error on my part based on a misreading of WP:BLPCAT and I will not repeat it. To claim that those edits are "manipulation" of a BLP is simply nonsense. The comments made in the ArbCom enforcement request are hard to square with my actual edits and were made, I believe, in a misguided attempt to support fellow admin Cirt. Although you left it out of your "evidence", the topic ban imposed upon me at that time was subsequently overturned. If that is the best you can do, your submission here is likely to be viewed as an attempt at retribution because I brought up your sockpuppetry to ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Not at all. I've been aware of your conduct for quite some time, well before this RfC/U blew up, and it has been egregious. I see no indication that Cirt's edits, while falling short of standards expected, were motivated by malice. Your own actions have been dripping with malice as your comments on WR show very clearly. I've raised this issue here because this has been an issue of concern to me for a long time, it is directly relevant to the case, and frankly, I wish I had spoken up sooner. I selfishly put my own wish for obscurity ahead of my moral revulsion at your actions and my long-standing concern at the harm you were causing. By flagging up your actions here, I hope that there will at last be some accountability for your actions. Prioryman ( talk) 21:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Strange that your "moral revulsion" didn't cause you to act until your sockpuppetry was exposed. Strange also that your "wish for obscurity" was insufficient to prevent you from commenting on the RFC/U about Cirt's editing. What I find strengest of all is that you seem to think there are many editors left who will simply accept what you say at face value following the exposure of your deceptive comments there. Quite frankly, I am not particularly bothered by your rather weak attempts to malign me. I am confident that there are enough people who have, at long last, seen the truth of the matter and if it comes at the cost of my reputation here (such as it is), I am fine with that. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 22:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I repeatedly raised the issue of your harassment during the RfC/U, but you studiously ignored it. The evidence of your behaviour is absolutely clear and I am sure the Arbitration Committee will take the appropriate corrective action. Prioryman ( talk) 22:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, you did try to make that Cirt RFC/U about anything other than Cirt, all the while pretending to be a new user who had no prior connection to the topic area. Which is odd, since you are not just involved in the topic area, but appear to be an anti-Scientology activist who is under ArbCom sanctions because of your past editing on this topic. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Lest you forget, "manipulation of BLPs" is the specific issue under scrutiny in this case. As far as I can see you are the only party who has actually demonstrably done this. And just to correct you, I am under voluntary restrictions that I myself proposed and agreed to (and was in fact commended for). Prioryman ( talk) 22:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, you are under "a voluntary binding restriction", in the words of ArbCom. Best of luck to you with convincing folks that my four edits (two of which were reverts) inserting a source already in use by Cirt constitute "manipulation of BLPs". Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to convince folks of anything. I'm simply pointing out what was said by multiple, uninvolved, experienced, highly regarded administrators back in December 2010. The judgements I'm citing are theirs. You are free to dispute it if you wish. Prioryman ( talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

By the way Prioryman, would you like the unanswered questions posed to you to go on the workshop page as well. I consider them as irrelevant to this case as your questions are of Delicious Carbuncle. But what say you? Will you answer them if they are asked in the manner you are asking? Griswaldo ( talk) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Looking at that source Delicious Carbuncle cited, it looks to me like a comprehensive primary source (or index of primary sources) by a well-regarded expert in a certain field of knowledge. The trouble is only that the interpretation of a primary source can go astray, especially when we make "commonsense" assumptions. It indexes a number of Scientology publications announcing the completion of various Scientology courses by Jamie Sorrentini. But nearly every one of the entries describing these courses (Celebrity 367, Celebrity 370, Celebrity 374) includes e-mail commentary that people were being signed up for them by Scientology-linked employers (!) or signed up without their knowledge. I would certainly not call the site an unreliable source; it would make a great backstop for any secondary source that dealt with the issue. It's just that we can't really interpret that record they serve on its own to say generally that she is, or even really was, a member of Scientology. Wnt ( talk) 20:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually there's a more fundamental problem I see with that source. As far as I can see, nobody appears to have found a mainstream reliable source for that statement. That suggests to me that her beliefs are not part of her public persona. It's quite possible that she, like many other people, regards her beliefs as a private matter. Unless it is a significant issue in her public life, it simply doesn't belong in a biographical profile and at least in my view represents an invasion of her privacy. Prioryman ( talk) 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, we have consensus (now) that the source is not reliable, so unless someone is can make a cogent argument that it is reliable, there's no need for us to debate it here. As for Prioryman's statement that Sorrentini's "beliefs are not part of her public persona", that seems to be at odds with this long piece she wrote about her experiences in the Church of Scientology. I'm sure he's seen it. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Obviously I haven't, especially as your link doesn't work. Prioryman ( talk) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The link works fine for me. I would have been sure that you have read that blog posting since I have referred to it before on this talk page as well as posted the link. And it is discussed on Wikipedia Review in those threads about Cirt that you keep bringing up. I'm pretty sure that it is also discussed in the arbitration enforcement case. You really ought to read it. And check out this blog posting by Sorrentini's husband (also discussed on Wikipedia Review). It's a moot point since I have no intention of labelling Sorrentini as a current or former Scientologist, but you keep bringing up these ridiculous arguments to try and make me look guilty of something and I feel compelled to refute them. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That blog post looks like a decent source (maybe self-published? I'm not sure) by Tiziano Lugli. If scientology-cult lacks an editorial process, then policy technically prohibits using it to make any statements about his wife, but I wouldn't see doing so as exceptionally heinous. Of course, that very compelling statement by Jamie Sorrenti linked above definitely should be referenced as a self-published source about herself. (unless, of course, there is any doubt about its authenticity) There is no form of BLP extremism more loathsome to me than when Wikipedia editors try to muzzle a Living Person to keep her from "embarrassing herself" by having her fair say about the things that matter to her. But even if these statements didn't exist, I doubt Prioryman's statement about invasion of privacy, because the material indexed by the "truth about Scientology" site is apparently from some obscure Scientology publications, and certainly it's out there now. We shouldn't play the game on Wikipedia of saying that we must pretend something doesn't exist because it's not supposed to be public, when it actually is. Otherwise we take a real risk that we start sounding like cultists. Wnt ( talk) 01:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The sources were offered strictly for discussion of what Sorrentini makes public, not as sources to be used in any article. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Since Prioryman has chosen to discuss the article Jamie Sorrentini in his evidence and on this talk page, I would like to broaden that discussion slightly to include the edit made to that article by Prioryman himself. Prioryman, editing as ChrisO (but appearing in the history as User:Vanished user 03 for technical reasons), made this edit to that article. The story of Jamie Sorrentini appeared in the blog of a former member of the Church of Scientology on 15 July 2010. Cirt created the article on the same day. On 16 July 2010, the next day, ChrisO made an edit to this new biography of a former member of the Church of Scientology. At the time, ChrisO was under sanctions as a result of WP:ARBSCI, specifically, "a binding voluntary restriction[161] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature". I think it is clear that ChrisO's edit, although trivial, violated sections (i) and (ii) of that agreement. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please request arbitration enforcement on this point as it relates to an old case. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This has already been dealt with by the Arbcom when someone reported it to them in August 2010. I'm not sure how I came across the article but as you said it was a trivial wikignoming edit. I had never heard of Sorrentini before and had no idea she was a Scientologist - note that the version of the article you referenced makes no mention of the fact and there is no Wikiproject Scientology banner on the talk page. It was a complete surprise when I was informed of this by the Arbcom. They were satisfied with my explanation. Prioryman ( talk) 07:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Can someone (Prioryman or Arbs) please provide a link to the discussion where this was addressed? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It was dealt with privately. No action was taken as no intentional violation was found. Prioryman ( talk) 13:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Arbs, can someone please confirm that this is the case? Did you really believe that an anti-Scientology activist had no idea that they were editing a BLP of someone associated with Scientology? Someone whose story appeared the day before on the blog of a prominent critic of the Church of Scientology? The fact that the only other editor was Cirt might perhaps have been a clue. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not in any way an "anti-Scientology activist" and I don't follow issues to do with Scientology off-wiki. I don't read blogs on the subject and I'm not involved in the topic area anywhere on or off-wiki. She doesn't seem very high-profile and I'd certainly never heard of her before - I've never watched any of the films or shows listed in her biography. There was nothing anywhere on Sorrenti's BLP to identify her as a Scientologist and without Googling there was no way for me to know that she was one. I'm not in the habit of Googling every BLP I edit to check whether a person is a Scientologist or not. Prioryman ( talk) 14:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I must have misunderstood the reason why you are under ArbCom sanctions regarding Scientology-related articles. ArbCom? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, evidently, since you were never involved in that issue in the first place. Please stick to commenting on things you actually know about. Prioryman ( talk) 14:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Prioryman, with all due respect, your writings on Hubbard and Scientology are all over the Internet's major anti-Scientology sites, under your former user name. You won a prize for one of these writings on Mark Bunker's website. As recently as July 2010, after Cirt indicated the need for a standalone article on the Second Chance Program, and his intention to write one, on the Sharron Angle talk page, you created a 4000-word article on the program that mentioned Angle a dozen times. Someone using your old user name, that same day, advertised the article you created on Wikipedia on the Anonymous forum forums.whyweprotest.net. Also [10] and others. How do you reconcile that with your statement that you are not involved with Scientology on-wiki or off-wiki? Meanwhile, I am getting automated messages that people from the International Cultic Studies Association have been researching me online, while these proceedings have been ongoing. -- J N 466 16:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

(ec) Let's be clear, my writings were written years ago, much of it ten years or more ago. I released them into the public domain just like my contributions to Wikipedia. Some people have chosen to post my writings on their websites. That's their choice, just as anyone is free to reuse any of the millions of words or thousands of images I've contributed to Wikipedia. I host nothing on the topic myself and haven't done for many years. If you look at my off-wiki writings, you'll see that they are all years old. The Second Chance article is the only new article I've written on the subject on Wikipedia in years and certainly the only one since the ARBSCI case. I don't think I was aware of Cirt's discussion before you raised it here and you'll note that I didn't participate in it. I certainly didn't write it in response to any editor's prompting. Yes, I posted about it on the Anonymous forum and on an ex-Scientologists' forum to ask for feedback [11]. If there'd been an official Scientology forum (there isn't) I would have posted there too. That wasn't activism; it's conscientious editing in the form of a request for feedback and fact-checking. The article benefited as some small errors were found and fixed. People - old contacts, writers and reporters - occasionally email me with questions and links to things they think might interest me. Very occasionally I might respond. That's what happened in the case of the thread here. Note the first comment? "I knew this New Yorker story would conjure you from your hiding place". I'm not much of an "activist" if I'm in a "hiding place", am I? As for the International Cultic Studies Association I have no idea who they are or why they are interested in you. Prioryman ( talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This case is not Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Prioryman, nor is it Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prioryman. It is not even Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scientology 2 or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt. The scope of the case was stated when the case was opened. Please keep your comments on target to that. NW ( Talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Is this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Will Beback? One large evidence submission has nothing to do with BLPs at all, and simply accuses me of incivility on an RFCU talk page. How does that fit the scope of this case?   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Apologies, but since accusations of "activism" have been made against me I needed to get the facts on the record. Hopefully this puts these bogus claims to rest and we can move on. Prioryman ( talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Prioryman, was your editing of Second Chance Program also brought to ArbCom as a violation of your editing sanctions? If it was brought before ArbCom, can you please provide a link to that discussion? If not, do you feel that it was in violation of point (i) of your sanctions? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

For the record, it was reviewed and no violation was found. I wrote it as the first stage of preparing it for a GA review but ARBCC and vanishing intervened. Now please pay attention to NW and don't sidetrack this page on issues that aren't remotely related to its scope. Prioryman ( talk) 21:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Let me see if I have this straight. Prioryman is an editor under sanctions regarding the editing of Scientology BLPs, and his editing of such a BLP is outside the scope of this case, but Delicious Carbuncle's editing of the very same entry is? Prioryman has presented evidence about Delicious Carbuncle's supposed off-wiki campaign against another editor and has proposed findings and sanctions based on that evidence, when that evidence is clearly far less relevant to a BLP case than this issue. Indeed how is it relevant to a BLP case at all? Griswaldo ( talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You're in denial about what DC did. The evidence is starkly clear that he did engage in a campaign of harassment and he did abusively manipulate a BLP in the course of that. That's not just my judgement, it's what the reviewing admins said about it back in December 2010. This is not simply an allegation by me - it is something that DC has already been found guilty of. I find it rather fascinating that you seem to be willing to overlook serious violations as long as the target of such violations is someone you oppose. As for my single edit to Sorrenti, a Scientologist nowhere identified in her article as such, I look forward to your explanation of why changing "seven-years-old" to "the age of seven" constitutes "manipulation of a BLP". Prioryman ( talk) 06:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

First of all I am intimately familiar with the situation since I was one of the people commenting on it at the time. Delicious Carbuncle was "guilty" of violating WP:POINT and that's all. He did disruptively edit a BLP to prove that point, but "that point" was itself one in the service of protecting BLPs. All these things that you insinuate in your response about me when you say that I am "in denial" or am "willing to overlook serious violations as long as the target ..." are simply way off the mark. I am on the record saying that Delicious Carbuncle should have been sanctioned for violating WP:POINT. What you are doing now is grossly overstating his "guilt" vis-a-vis uninvolved admins. 1) Future Perfect at Sunrise initiated the ban upon Cirt's request, and that action was found in the wrong by uninvolved admins. 2) Uninvolved admins all felt that if Delicious Carbuncle was to be sanctioned then surely Cirt should have received the very same sanction. Part of the reason why DC's sanction was overturned was because people like Jehochman argued that neither should be sanctioned, once it became clear that Cirt was in line for one himself. So I take issue with your highly skewed presentation of the facts here. Now, all that said, I will repeat my other point. The harassment issue has nothing whatsoever to do with BLPs, and the meat of your case against DC has to do with that, and not the 4 POINTY edits he made to one BLP article. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 08:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Question to Arbitration Committee

Can we hear an official statement about Prioryman's edits to Jamie Sorrentini and to the Second Chance article or else can you please direct me to the proper venue to request such a statement? Since both situations appear to have been handled officially already I feel that making an Arbitration Enforcement request seems silly, but I'm prepared to do so if that is the only way to hear from you all. With no meaning of disrespect to Prioryman, he does not speak for the committee, and someone who does should clarify this. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 00:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry if my attempt at humor caused some consternation (I was off to the Meta image filter debate), but I still can't believe that anyone would seriously expect ArbCom to sanction someone for changing "seven-years-old" to "the age of seven". Wnt ( talk) 19:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps this is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees? There are a few issues here that should concern the community. While one trivial edit may not in itself be a problem, it needs to be examined as a part of a pattern. It is not the only violation of ChrisO/Prioryman's sanctions. Chriso/Prioryman is claiming that the violations were dealt with "privately" but this has yet to be confirmed by any member of ArbCom, nor do we know how they were "dealt with". And, finally, speaking of ArbCom, where are they? The lack of response to the questions here speaks volumes. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What I expect is for people under certain restrictions to abide by them (no matter how minor you think erring from such restrictions is). I also expect Arbcom, when confronted with something like this, to explain themselves. And for the record the Second Chance Program article contains much more Scientology BLP editing than what you're mentioning from the Sorrentini article. Remember that BLP applies to any information about a living person in any entry, not just the biographical entries of those people. There is a great deal of such information in that article. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, regarding this specific situation, and Prioryman's own pushing on the matter of Delicious Carbuncle's edits of the Sorrentini bit, there is another thing I believe in WP:BOOMERANG. I don't think anyone was digging into this until Prioryman brought the issue of the very article to the table. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

As the drafter in this case, I've been reviewing the evidence and workshop proposals. I will continue to do so over the next couple of days and then there will be a proposed decision. Editors should please try to finish up submitting any proposals and comments, and should do so without unnecessary invective, rhetoric, or unconstructive comments. That being said, the participation of everyone who has submitted evidence and proposals is appreciated. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Newyorkbrad, take a look at the section above. Maybe you or one of your ArbCom colleagues could address the questions about the handling of ChrisO/Prioryman's violation of his sanctions? Apropos of your comments about "unnecessary invective, rhetoric, or unconstructive comments", I think it would be helpful to address this sooner rather than later. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply