Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
 * 3) Cool Hand Luke
 * 4) David Fuchs
 * 5) Jclemens
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Mailer diablo
 * 8) Newyorkbrad
 * 9) PhilKnight
 * 10) Roger Davies
 * 11) SirFozzie

Inactive:
 * 1) Iridescent
 * 2) Risker
 * 3) Xeno

Recused:
 * 1) Coren
 * 2) John Vandenberg
 * 3) Elen of the Roads

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 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 Talk 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 - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop - 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 Talk 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 ( talk ) 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the application of this remedy Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision, and will of course abide by it. However, I agree with this comment by Newyorkbrad at remedy Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision. 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: ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision&diff=447475124&oldid=447473955 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 Wikipedia. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Cirt, while not perfect, has been dogged by several editors who do not necessarily have Wikipedia's interests at the top of their agendas. Whatever restrictions are placed must be clearly defined and reasonable in scope. Jehochman Talk 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 I saw of their interactions was civil. I can't see any dysfunction in the way they relate. This interaction ban serves no purpose. It underestimates the maturity of both parties, they don't need it and it may postpone any possible reconciliation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in my evidence, the interaction here is hardly an appropriate use of the Werner Erhard Talk page, and I don't see how it can be construed as anything other than offtopic wikistalking behavior by Jayen. I think Jayen's behavior has been problematic, and the committee is justified in preventing more of the same. --Noren (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No evidence of stalking there. And if an editor applies a standard to one article but not another, we're entitled to ask for clarification. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that the Talk:Werner Erhard page was the proper venue for such a question? Are you of the opinion that Jayen's posts in that thread were helpful in answering the question that a third party had posed on that talk page, and indeed that they were for the purpose of improving the Werner Erhard page? I should also point out that Jayen seems to have forgotten about these posts when he responded to a question about his recent interactions with Cirt. --Noren (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. He was still, ultimately, addressing the appropriateness of an edit to the attached article, seeking clarification of Cirt's rationale. This kind of thing may also occur on user:talk, but it is not inappropriate for the talk page of the article in question, where other editors of the article would have been privy to Cirt's expanded rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:59, 3 September 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  babelfish 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)
 * Except that I was right? See below: Now will you do anything? Shell   babelfish 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although most of what you said was not ascribed to anyone in particular, you are right that Jayen466 supplied widely-known public information in order to expedite posting by the "hacker," who was kind enough to name him as a source. It is a bit troubling, and it reaffirms my belief that an interaction ban is called for. Cool Hand Luke 00:16, 2 September 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 scope of this present case at all. This case was originally framed as a question of personal conduct and interpersonal relationships.
 * Raul654, Wikipedia's FA director, had expressed the view that my complaints in 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) 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 below 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 regarding 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). 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 Wikipedia 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, -- J N  466  13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't recall ever cursing at Cirt, or making claims that are untrue, Shell. If I had done so here, I am sure I would have found myself at WQA or ANI, which I haven't, and my WR posts related to Cirt are here. I don't see any cursing. -- J N  466  13:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, that WR link also shows the origin of the "Jayen466 is a Scientologist" rumour that I mentioned at RfAR. Cirt had apparently e-mailed Somey, one of the Wikipedia Review mods, with that (false) bit of news. -- J N  466  13:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jayen, I suppose I should have been more specific. You aren't the only one behaving badly, so not all those behaviors are ascribable to you; in fact, some have been used against you.  There is a gaping hole of dealing with those issues in this case.  I don't believe I recall you cursing at any time, but false claims - certainly.  You claimed Cirt used a youtube video as a source when it was used like an image instead - you made this claim multiple times; simply being in an article does not mean something is used as a source.  You've repeatedly claimed to know Cirt's motives for various actions and deemed them the worst possible motive for any given action; there is a distinct lack of good faith.  The entire Wikibombing essay was a veiled attack on Cirt that made any number of assumptions later proven to be completely false, and again, was only believable if you imagine Cirt sitting behind the keyboard with one of those little curly mustaches going "Muhahahaha".  There is no doubt Cirt's editing isn't perfect and he needs to fix it rather than simply back out of areas, but ignoring all of the other issues in this case doesn't do it any justice. Shell   babelfish 14:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of things here. The Aaron Saxton video he claimed was used as a source is indeed still being used as a source. See Aaron_Saxton. The video that was not used as a source, I only see him saying was "embedded" in the entry. Please review the RfC and the RfC talk page, especially here. On the other hand if a video contains information that is a BLP no no it doesn't matter if it's in external links, used as a reference or whatever. It shouldn't be in the article period. To be hung up on how it was used seems entirely besides the point (though again I don't see Jayen getting that wrong either). So what false claims again? Perhaps Jayen should answer the Wikibombing thing himself, but I'm pretty sure I recall him regretting that action already. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to this which Jayen then brought up as BLPSPS violations elsewhere, not the RfC. And it is good that in hindsight, Jayen regretted the way the essay was initially written, but it does show that maybe years of dealing with the situation has colored his perception (as you would expect of anyone) and now that restrictions are in place, a break from each other wouldn't be amiss. Shell   babelfish 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be grasping at straws with this. Your example of Jayen supposedly "repeatedly mak[ing] claims that turn out to be untrue" consists of the technical mistake of suggesting that embedded links that are not actually being used as "sources" in the strict sense might be a WP:BLPSPS violation? It seems like the obvious policy to look to if you ask me, despite the technicality. Either way this is a pretty ridiculous piece of evidence for the charge you have made. Are you sure you didn't just repeat this charge because of the many times that the anti-Jayen cavalcade was screaming it on the RfC talk page? It was pretty thin back then too.Griswaldo (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another quick question Griswaldo - I'm not sure if this came across clearly enough, but you do realize that I'm not just focused on Jayen here and I'm concerned that the decision leaves out other parties who were equally as problematic in the way they dealt with Cirt vs Jayen over the years (i.e. people being driven off Wikipedia by someone's supporters is a serious issue). Shell  babelfish 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean driven off like User:Njsustain? I suggest rereading his comment on my RfC view. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, thus, an interaction ban will be a good thing in the long run. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it underestimates both parties. They've demonstrated that they're capable of directly interacting in a civil manner. None of the problem behaviours of the past between them, on WR or on-Wiki, would have been prevented by a WP interaction ban. Arbs, please reconsider this. The willingness of the parties to agree to this has no bearing on its appropriateness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the steps that the parties have gone here towards each other (and I will make it clear that I will not exempt either party from that.), it is not only appropriate, but near-required. As a addendum, while we cannot tell parties to not go after each other off-Wiki as well as on, I think the parties would best be served by observing the interaction ban, elsewhere, off of WP as well. That's just my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the evidence is not strong enough for a finding against an editor, it is illogical to apply a sanction to that editor. Several of you feel that that there isn't enough evidence for a finding, but are still supporting a sanction. It also confirms the reasonably held assumption that challenging Cirt's editing will result in sanctions to the editor challenging him. Will we continue to see this pattern should someone raise an issue about Cirt's editing at Arbitration Enforcement? Risker (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and here's why. There was several issues that fell outside Wikipedia's DR processes (including one by Jayen that he himself admitted was beyond what we expect from our editors). SirFozzie (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker, you say, illogical, but it's much worse than that -- it's unfair, even if the sanction is justified. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to SirFozzie (sorry, the indents might be getting a bit confused here) I'm not sure I follow. What I am talking about is the "chill" that results in good editors walking away from resolving issues on articles because they do not want to pour their volunteer hours into a dispute resolution process that has historically resulted in sanctions to the editors raising legitimate issues, whilst not actually resolving the editorial problem. On what basis do you think that once again sanctioning an editor who actually stuck to it long enough to have these issues addressed will change the climate and make it more likely that editors will indeed take action on problematic editing? If you can't justify a finding, how are you justifying a sanction? Risker (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally, can justify both, from Jayen's own words that the line was crossed multiple times, (the Wikibombing, and the WR thread). I've voted to justify both in the decision and in fact, the finding is passing. SirFozzie (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell wrote: If less than 1% of your edits over several years are mistakes/problems, you will be treated harshly. Obviously, the nature and circumstances of the edits are what matter, not the percentage, and the overall point is also irrelevant: valuable editing doesn't justify bad behavior (although valuable editing may mean arbitrators should do what they can to avoid making it too difficult for that editor to continue). Shell, Cirt seems more ready to acknowledge the problem than you are. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:05, 1 September 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 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Wikipedia 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" [bolding mine] - 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   babelfish 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Not going to do your homework for you, but its not terribly difficult to find where Jayen has publicly linked himself to the WR account and admitted having assisted the "hacker" in digging up information on Cirt; he's done so again right on this page. Shell  babelfish 14:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So it turned out that there was indeed some lonely frosting sitting on top of an otherwise non-existent cake. All the other claims you made above, leading up to the WR comment appear to be without merit (e.g. the cursing, harassing, making false claims, etc.). You can't fault someone for questioning the last, and most insignificant of them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends on the assumption that my comment referred only to Jayen, which I have clarified (if you take a look at further conversation up there). However, if providing information to the "hacker" designed to allow that person to find additional information about another editor because you were curious how ArbCom felt about that editor is your idea of "insignificant", then we'll have to disagree there.  I'm pretty much completely appalled that any editor would assist in digging up dirt from a confidential mailing list. Shell   babelfish 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we disagree. I will answer your clarification within the proper section now that I see it because there are still problems with it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia.   Will Beback    talk    00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen admitted it here:    Will Beback    talk    03:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "admitted what"? Did he admit violating the BLP policy over a period of years through his contributions to this projects articles about living people? Off2riorob (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well. Your comment seems like an attempt to change the topic.   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know perfectly well - for me, there is only one issue here and that is User:Cirt's repeated and extensive policy and guideline violations over a period of years, especially WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Off2riorob (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "so you ... think it is fine colluding with a leaker of confidential emails to facilitate the leaking of conversations on wikipedia review then?" to quote Casliber.    Will Beback    talk    04:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a minor issue to me compared to the violations against living people through User:Cirt's contributions using wikipedia en as a vehicle for such violations over a period of years. Off2riorob (talk) 04:08, 3 September 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 Wikipedia all day. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The calculations at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision appear to still be off. There are multiple points listed as passing, that have less than the requisite number of votes. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which? "3 Bias and prejudice" is passing with 6 votes because there was 1 abstention. Every other passing proposal has 7 or more in support. – xeno talk  14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I see it, "oppose" votes don't count against the "support" count, correct? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct: the support threshold represents an absolutely majority of active, non-abstaining, non-recusing arbitrators. – xeno talk  14:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, perhaps just one or two needs updating then. Thanks for the explanation! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that some of Fozzie's changed votes need to have their numbering corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * taken care of :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And now Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision needs updating again. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only be online so often. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This will go on your performance review the next time you hit us up for a raise, Hersfold.... (kidding) :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why can't ArbCom present clear evidence against Jayen with simple diffs?
''Jayen466 has sometimes engaged in inappropriate conduct in respect of Cirt, primarily by being over-focused on Cirt's editing and by being indiscriminate in his accusations about Cirt. (cf Tryptofish's evidence and Cbrick77's evidence)''

Look, if you're going to sanction editors, you owe it to them to state clearly what it is that you say they did wrong. That's simple fairness. You should say it officially and explicitly. Arbcom is sanctioning Jayen while the only finding against him is this vague statement (which may or may not even pass). WHICH edits that Tryptofish and Cbrick77 is ArbCom citing here? Are some Arbcom members supporting some diffs and not others as showing signs of problematic behavior? Are Arbcom members supporting the same diffs or different diffs? Why doesn't Arbcom do the work of presenting its own diffs? There is no good reason for a lack of clarity here. Unclear findings naturally raise suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of ArbCom. You're supposed to be setting an example, not violating WP:NPA with

''Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.''

Of course, if explicit accusations and links couldn't get a majority on ArbCom, then what's your justification for sanctioning him with an interaction ban? If you provide links to Jayen's "indiscriminate ... accusations" in a finding, would it show that there really wasn't much to that allegation? What exactly does "over-focused on Cirt's editing" mean? It seems plausible that a regular editor could become justifiably frustrated, and therefore "over-focused," when administrators, apparently for some time, were under-focused on actions by Cirt that ArbCom now finds so wrong. More clarity here might also help other editors who get into similar situations where they believe Wikipedia's got an ongoing problem that isn't being handled by admins.

Principle 5 ("Fair criticism and personal attacks") seems to be meant to apply to Jayen, or perhaps Jayen and Cirt both. If so, provide the diffs in the "Findings" section. Otherwise, you leave the implication there without clear access to the presumed proof.

Editors deserve clarity when you're telling them they did something wrong. Admins who may be looking at an editor's conduct in the future deserve a clear, explicit, up-front statement of what ArbCom finds that editor did wrong. They shouldn't have to go climbing and swinging through a jungle of links to try to find it -- only to scratch their heads and wonder "is this what ArbCom meant?" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John is right. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * so you guys both think it is fine colluding with a leaker of confidential emails to facilitate the leaking of conversations on wikipedia review then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand what John is saying, he is saying that whatever your reasoning is for the finding or sanction, then you need to clearly say so. Spell it out, i.e. "Based on these comments [list of diffs], this off-wiki action [link], and the behavior exhibited here [link], so-and-so is found to be..."  Say clearly why you are doing something to someone so that they'll understand where it is coming from.  Don't leave it open to guessing. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that if that is Arbcom's real reason for sanctioning him, Arbcom should make that as clear as possible. You should make it a finding in black and white on the Proposed Decision page. Then he and others have a chance to discuss it. Then you demonstrate that it really is the reason for the sanction by voting on it. Then, if you do sanction him for that reason, he gets to walk away saying "OK, they don't want me to do this, but that action over there wasn't what they were talking about." It makes it easier for him to learn whatever lesson you want to give him and then get that behind him. It makes it easier for others to understand what the boundaries are -- both editors who might engage in similar behavior and admins who could use guidance in policing similar behavior. Also, if some admin thinks there's a behavioral problem with him again, it will be easier to know just what the committee was thinking back in September of 2011. It's more work for you now, less work and worry for everyone else later. And it gives voters in the next elections a clearer understanding of the job you're doing. My objections are all procedural, but for the reasons I've given, this is a damn important procedure.


 * As to the point you make, I have some sympathy with both sides, but I don't know the full story and ultimately have no opinion. I certainly hate the idea that really personal information might be leaked, but I love the idea that your internal deliberations were leaked -- much of it should've been public anyway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking back, certainly a portion of what we've talked about privately could have been done on wiki, but there is a helluva lot which would have been difficult to do so, but I digress. Ok, will look into adding diffs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there are links in the finding, but they are one step removed. Personally, I've never been a fan of writing essays such as this and note that it looks like Jayen thinks that maybe could have been handled differently, so I am glad to see that post. I also think some other essays could do with looking at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic, but I agree that there is a worrisome trend of writing essays to condemn the behavior of specific, though unnamed, editors.   Will Beback    talk    00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, it's a good thing we have off-wiki forums like Wikipedia Review to discuss problematic editing practices. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the forum where people, who are BLP zealots while editing Wikipedia, go to trash their "colleagues" by name and to post private or confidential information. If you think that's a "good thing" then it's clear why Wikipedia has become such a tendentious place to create encyclopedia content.   Will Beback    talk    01:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That blp zealot is quite an attacking essay. As for content creation, millions of articles...and growing - this can easily be seen as a transitional period where long term users that were established prior to policy strengthening and don't like it now they are restricted from asserting these people that I oppose are nasty and evil are squealing prior to leaving. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Um.. I think this is getting a bit heated here. WR can be a good place to vent and or interface with people who you can't talk to here on WP (for whatever reason). There are times when they've been quite frankly telling an "Inconvenient Truth", so to speak. Other times, you have to take their claims with a grain of salt the size of a boulder. There were some lines crossed I particularly don't like in this case (the soliciting of publishing private information on another editor in an attempt to get "dirt" on another user). That went into my votes here. However, Will, you come very close to using the tired "BADSITES" mantra that I had hoped we had moved on from that. SirFozzie (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'd feel that if you were one of its constant targets. Excuse me for disapproving about a site that posts intentionally insulting and private material about Wikipedia editors, and that actively seeks ways of getting good faith editors banned from this site.   Will Beback    talk    06:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will: You don't think that Arb members are constant targets there? Recent past events I think disprove your point. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't see the difference between their attention of the ArbCom as a whole and their attention of me as an individual then I guess there's no point in discussing it.   Will Beback    talk    11:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just heard a movie dialogue exchange that could apply. Can you guess the movie this comes from?:
 * Q: What kind of Wikipedia discussion forum is Wikipedia Review?
 * A: Like any other Wikipedia discussion forum, only more so. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha very funny, Cla68, as you know I have participated in discussion over there. I have no problem with that, but facilitating the leakage of private emails is another matter entirely. Are you condoning that behaviour? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WR is diverse group of people from every one from Arbitrators, Clerks, check users to Trolls, Hackers and Banned users. I dont participate there I find it toxic environment that reminds me of other toxic online forums. Participation there does not mean Cla68, Jayen466 or Off2RioRob Automatically condone what every user there does any more than you do as a WR member. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point of this thread. The conduct addressed in the finding of fact concerning Jayen is "being over-focused on Cirt's editing and [...] indiscriminate in his accusations about Cirt." The reasons given by Casliber in this thread and SirFossie in the above thread for an interaction ban are the essay, which Jayen has acknowledged shouldn't have cited Cirt's behaviour directly, and his attempt to solicit arbcom email discussions concerning Cirt at WR, which he has explained and for which he has apologised. That is, the findings, as they stand, do not reflect the apparent reasons behind the interaction ban.

Regarding "being over-focused on Cirt's editing", I reject this totally. Had he been a jot less focused on Cirt's behaviour, nothing would have been done here. His determination to draw the comminity's and Cirt's attention to the problem with Cirt's editing has cost him dearly in time, attention and energy. His persistence, in the face of indifference from all (I think) admins, and abuse from many of them, deserves to be commended not condemned. Please rethink this finding. I'd like to see the "indiscriminate accusations" enumerated: I recall one or two trivial criticisms by Jayen but if what I recollect is the sum of this transgression, this finding is spurious. These findings, as they stand, are unjust and a pure disincentive to anyone who finds him- or herself in Jayen's position in the future.

Can the arbcom findings please make clear the reasons for the proposed interaction ban? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why can't the committee come up with a limited BLP-related topic ban for Cirt?
[''I've crossed out some words and added others in italics in response to Roger Davies' comment. I don't think I was clear enough before.''] Cirt is a fine editor in many ways. I recall working with him on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and its AfD, and I was impressed. Most observers and most arbitrators seem to think that the proposal "Cirt restricted for all BLPs" is too broad, and I agree: I wouldn't want to make it so difficult for Cirt to edit Wikipedia that he walks away. At the same time, Cirt himself has suggested a more subject restricted BLP topic ban. I think a ban restriction on direct article edits to BLP material related to politics and religion, broadly construed, and perhaps a ban on BLP material that is controversial (outside Wikipedia) would work. Yes, it would be more difficult to enforce. Cirt's worth the extra effort. The comments of the arbitrators on the PD page indicate a majority could be found for a more limited BLP topic ban editing restriction. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should probably explain what I had in mind with the BLP restriction. It was intended to be broader but actually less restrictive that a topic ban because it does not prevent him from working on BLPs it just means he has to get his edits approved first. In practical terms, this means that controversial stuff will get vetoed and non-controversial stuff will whistle through. I proposed this because it seemed to me the fastest way for him to get the hang of what is and what isn't acceptable in BLPs. I still prefer this to a more rigid topic ban, especially as - for reasons Brad and my exchange highlight - a straight topic ban on, say, politics is difficult to draft, and open to all sorts of gaming and endless rounds of WP:AE applications.  Roger Davies  talk 18:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I was the one being unclear -- I shouldn't use the phrase "topic ban" when what I meant was "editing restriction." I understand your point, but (in some ways like Newyorkbrad) disagree with how it would actually work. In fact, a lot of the noncontroversial edits that could be made to biographies are on pages where few editors edit, so it can be difficult to find a consensus to add material (although I suppose only one other editor approving the edit, without anyone else participating, would create a consensus, some editors will be reluctant to draw that conclusion, and it will sometimes be difficult to find that one other editor, unless Cirt asks a friend to edit, which could then be problematic for other reasons). I think you're making it too difficult for Cirt to find other areas to edit with ease -- he'll be dragging around that ball and chain to nearly any article. Conversely, the controversial articles often have plenty of editors willing to act on a proposal to make irresponsible edits to them (Wikipedia is flooded with that kind of behavior).


 * Incidentally, the proposal as it stands would allow Cirt to edit freely many articles beyond "abstract" ones that Newyorkbrad mentions: biographies of dead people, history articles, articles on most things not directly related to the activity of specific, named individuals (articles on food, most objects, art, literature, for instance). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I continue to think that it would be productive to look back at the Workshop, where these kinds of issues were already examined. The Arbs could probably save yourselves some duplicated effort that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As the recent post on WR perceptively noted, there is a lot of what the Committee probably regards as unseemly yelling happening on the Workshop page. The Committee should remember, however, that because an editor is being dramatic it doesn't mean that they are wrong or that their complaints, ideas, or suggestions shouldn't be carefully considered.  As Tryptofish helpfully suggests, it might even save the Committee some time and effort. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger, among others, has seen the Workshop page. In fact, Roger made numerous comments there. There may be Workshop haters among the Arbitrators; we're not among them. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the issue with restricting User:Cirt from political BLP articles ? Evidence is there of malpractice and the user himself has accepted it, an I missing something? Left like this the user is free to create another santorium firestorm of disruption - not to mention the other political BLP articles that were promoted in support of off wiki campaigns. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a couple of alternatives (see proposed remedies 2.1 and 2.2) for the Committee's consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These proposals look good to me. I think 2.2 ("Cirt restricted from 'political' biographies" -- perhaps "Cirt restricted from editing controversial biographical information" works better as a title) would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and it still allows Cirt to edit subjects connected to living people. I'd reword one part: Change (2) the subject of the edit relates to politics, religion, or social controversy. to (2) the edit relates to a political, religious or social controversy. That would make it clear that, for example, Cirt could add this language to the article It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living (one of the few mainspace articles where Cirt has added content in recent months): Dan Savage writes of his own life in the book, "Eight years after coming out, I would stumble into a rewarding and unlikely career as a sex-advice columnist, of all things, and somehow leverage that into a side gig as a potty-mouthed political pundit. [...]" The language of 2.2, as it stands, could be interpreted to prohibit Cirt adding that kind of sentence because part of it is about "politics," yet what Arbcom really wants is for Cirt to stay away from editing article content on public controversies (because of the identified problem with "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs"). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, 2.2 hits the nail on the head. I hope that the Arbs will look at it seriously. Thanks, Brad. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My proposal
I would like Arbs to comment on my proposal here. I feel it specifically focuses on the problem areas of Cirt's. It is certainly better than simple loosely defined topic bans proposed for NRMs, BLPs, or POLITICAL-BLPs. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there are concerns, which Cirt to an extent has acknowledged, that the issues go beyond "new religious movements" and their opponents specifically. Arbitrators who disagree with that should vote against both of the new proposals.
 * I acknowledge that the language of my proposals may call for tailoring and have no objection to suggestions here or copyediting by arbitrators; in fact, I agree that some would probably be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the evidence, I see Political BLPs all have ties back to Scientology with the notable exception of Dan Savage material. I think a comprehensive and specific NRM scoped remedy as I have proposed is better than the vague one we have now. Not proposing it be the only one but dealing with it comprehensively is the goal here. I also which to thank you for the prompt response. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a meme that all the political BLP issues are really Scientology ones. Given how remote the purported connections seem to be, I don't think this claim is useful in practice. It's like proposing a topic ban on any person who has ever said anything in relation to Scientology. That's not a well-defined topic ban&mdash;it's an invitation to an eternal debate clinic. Cool Hand Luke 18:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brad: the problems went beyond NRMs. I don't know enough to say whether there was a problem with his editing of article content on counter-movement people, which your proposal addresses. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrators and topic bans
If an administrator's editing is so problematic that they must be topic banned, they should not be an administrator. I believe you should deal with this now. Either de-sysop or don't topic ban. It very much undermines the community's confidence in the admin corps to have among our membership those who's editing has been so seriously problematic that they need a topic ban. The situation with ChrisO ended badly, which is the only other situation I am not aware of any situation where an admin was topic banned. I don't see how Cirt can be an effective administrator with this sanction in place. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman is right. I was shocked to learn over the course of this case that we have Admins under topic bans. We have this old Axiom that "Adminship is not a big deal." That may have been true a decade or maybe even five years ago. If Wikipedia is indeed a "serious educational and scholarly project" than our definition of "Administrator" is sharply detached from popular definitions. In the real world people with authoritative titles like "Administrators" are held accountable for their actions. :We have a big problem when Admin violating core policies of BLP, NPOV, and VERIFY.  There is common perception that Admins are never held accountable for content violations the ways average editors are. Had an average user done such a long running campaign they would had been banned here at the end of the case. Yet we repeat the Second problematic Axiom "without misuse of tools there is no reason to De-sysop."
 * Our continued insistence on these two Axioms is an absurd situation and makes a farce of our community. Admins need to help accountable just like regular editors and maybe even more so since it is a position of trust. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. It is only attitudes that it is a big deal that make it a big deal. If adminship were more freely given and taken away, it would become less of a big deal. In practice, being an admin makes you a target for some non-admins (some non-admins are renowned for questioning an admin's status as an admin when the admin in question is in fact only editing and is not using the admin tools at all or in any way leveraging their status as an admin - think bog-standard article talk page disputes or Wikipedia namespace disputes). And being a non-admin makes some people think they can be more forthright and aggressive than they could if they were an admin. It cuts both ways. I recently saw an admin say something that inflamed a situation, but the response was even more eye-opening (I apologise to the two editors in question for using this as an example, but it was the best I could think of right now). I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people upbraid an admin with words like "your conduct is unbecoming of that expected of an admin", while non-admins get away with the same sort of behaviour but are not upbraided for it because, well, I suppose because it is OK to act that way if you are not an admin? It is possible to go too far with the 'hold admins to a higher standard of conduct' meme. I support that concept in principle, but it only works if you hold non-admins who have been around for ages to the same standards. It is more the amount of time an editor has been around and is familiar with community norms that matters, not whether they are an admin or not. The exception I would make to this is when an admin is dealing with a new editor or a 'member of the public'. While admins are not Wikipedia's representatives, they should show as much restraint (and more) in that sort of situation as other long-term editors (i.e. set an example - though long-term editors need to set examples as well). When, however, it is two long-term editors bickering over something (and one is an admin and one not), I would be more inclined to ignore the admin status and try and get the situation mediated. And I'll attempt to do that now for the situation I noted above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users have been topic banned and not desysopped since ArbCom was created; it's happened at least a half dozen times, and there is no example I am aware of desysopping someone for their simple editing. At the end of the day, our content matters more than whatever short-term janitorial bits are flipped. I'm of the opinion that our standards for making admins (at RFA) are much too harsh, while our standards for BLP editing are too lax. Cool Hand Luke 00:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though 'conduct unbecoming' was (I think) used when Jayjg was removed as a functionary. See here and here. That was a tacit recognition that functionaries can be seen as more privileged than ordinary admins and editors. The real problem is that removing adminship will be seen as a nuclear option by some until a relatively easy path to regain trust is shown to work. This is why I've always supported the notion that ArbCom can remove adminship and restore it later. The initial RFA should be seen as just that, an initial passing of the community's trust, with the community then trusting ArbCom to deal with later problems. And that includes both ArbCom removing adminship relatively easily and restoring it relatively easily, and the community in turn needs to trust that if ArbCom restores an adminship they removed, then they have reason for doing so. The other way to look at it is that admins need to have the trust of both the community and ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so; I would prefer remedies that expressly contemplate ArbCom restoring the tools.
 * The Jayjg remedy is instructive because the "conduct unbecoming" and topic restriction issue were at the forefront of that decision, but the committee declined to remove the admin bit. I'm a little surprised by the early support for a desysop remedy here; this is a departure from prior practice. Cool Hand Luke 23:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised too, actually. I think the Committee needs to think very carefully about the consequences of passing the proposal to de-sysop Cirt. There are a significant number of sitting administrators who, at various times throughout Wiki-history, have had topic bans, editing restrictions, and the like, placed on them by ArbCom. If Cirt is de-sysoped, the Committee needs to be prepared either to de-sysop all those others by motion, or to explain why Cirt is different (and I don't think you will be able to do the latter). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what bothers me about it. Of all admins who have been sanctioned but not desysopped, I do not think we can say Cirt has been worst. Nor do I think it necessarily sends the right signal to, for example, RFA. Nor do I think it's good for the encyclopedia. If Cirt is not advocating on BLPs, I hope that he's as prolific as ever as an admin.
 * I would be more amiable to a proposal that expressly contemplates ArbCom returning the bit as well, like Carcharoth says above. Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand the voting process correctly, I think it the de-sysop has passed. So I look forward to the Committee swiftly de-sysoping all those other administrators, or explaining why not. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Committee decisions do not create binding precedent, and certainly don't set precedent to be enforced ex post facto. – xeno talk  18:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I suppose I was thinking more along the lines of reductio ad absurdum, which, in this case, will be a tougher standard to pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion there is too much conflation of "article writing" and "adminship", both at RfA and in comments in discussions in places like this. Adminship should only be about "Do we trust user:Example to use the admin tools only in a manner approved by the community?", not at all about how good at writing articles they are. There is obviously overlap between the roles in terms of collegiality, but this overlap should not be extended too far. In this case, it seems that there has been no evidence presented that Cirt' status as an admin had any bearing on this dispute at all (note: I've not looked at the evidence, this is based only on comments on this page and the proposed decision page) - the dispute would have been exactly the same in all material factors if he hadn't been an admin. If this is the case then a desysopping would be purely punitive, which is something the ArbCom does not do.
 * Topic bans are basically a way of saying that the community trusts your judgement as an editor in all areas of the project, except regarding this one topic. Administrative topic bans also exist (e.g. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket "Hawkeye7 is directed not to take any further administrative actions with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale") for exactly the same purpose. Obviously editorial topic bans also preclude administrator actions in the same area (e.g. if Cirt is prohibited from editing political BLPs he is de facto also prohibited from taking admin actions on those articles).
 * When an admin misuses their tools in a dispute that ends up at the ArbCom, the Committee decided whether the wrongdoing was significant enough to merit removal of the admin bit (i.e. it is clear that they no longer hold the trust of the Community) or not and a slap on the wrist (a warning, reminder, admonishment, etc) is sufficient (the community sill trusts them with the tools).
 * However, where it is unclear whether a user still has the community's trust (possibly evidenced by a fairly even split among arbitrators on a proposed desysopping), then I can see the value in directing the user in question to submit to a reconfirmation RFA (within a defined timescale) before performing any admin actions (either at all, or just of the sort they got into trouble for) and to abide by the result. In slightly lessor cases the user may be "encouraged", "advised" or "recommended", etc rather than directed. I don't think this applies to Cirt though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the thoughtful comments. This is one of the best discussions in recent memory.  My thought about Cirt is that if he is trusted to retain admin tools, he should also be trusted not to repeat mistakes that he has admitted.  Logically, the resolution is either topic ban and resign/remove admin tools, or issue an admonishment and understand that topic ban and loss of sysop action will happen if there is recidivism. I think it is bad practice to have admins running around under sanctions, as their authority is seriously questioned.  I agree with Carcharoth's point that loss of adminship could be temporary or reversible by ArbCom. Jehochman Talk 03:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adminship should be automatic for any editor who reaches a certain number of edits and has a clean block log or who is not editing under a sanction. Editors who have been blocked or sanctioned would still need to go through the RfA process.  Of course, a mechanism needs to exist that can quickly remove admin privileges also.  I thought Tony1's "Admin Review Board" idea would have adequately served this purpose. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit counts are an exceedingly poor measure of competence. I'd rather have as an admin someone with just 300 edits, mostly civil comments in XfD discussions, than someone with 1000 edits, almost entirely to a small group of contentious pages and their talk, or a user with three FAs to their credit but with no experience of XfD or dispute resolution. All users could have equally clean block logs and not be under any restriction, but only one of them would have demonstrated an understanding of admin duties. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, that's exactly why adminship should be based on something like edit count, because that would really help make it "no big deal". Cla68 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's "no big deal", which adminship should be, and there's being reckless. My personal standards are at Requests for adminship/Standards/T-Z (scroll down to Thryduulf), none of which can be measured in terms of edit count. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the way things currently work at Wikipedia, I think it is within ArbCom's remit to make a topic ban without de-sysoping, and it would be difficult for ArbCom to decide, on the basis of the available evidence, to de-sysop Cirt without creating new policy. By "new policy", I mean that ArbCom would be empowered to decide unilaterally that the community has lost trust in a particular administrator (in contrast to finding concrete misuse of administrative tools), and that ArbCom would have the authority to de-sysop based upon that determination.

This thread prompts me to repeat something I also said in the Workshop. What we see here, vividly, is the lack of something that Wikipedia needs: a workable mechanism for the community to evaluate whether an administrator has lost the community's trust. When the CDA proposal was defeated, I was told by defenders of the status quo that there needs to be evidence that our existing mechanisms don't work. Perhaps we have an example here. There was an RfC/U. There was arbitration. The arbitrators, themselves, are not in complete agreement about whether their decision properly reflects community standards with respect to de-sysoping. And we actually do not know, in this specific case, what those community standards really are. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think one of the arguments here is that the findings and the already passing remedies indeed show such a loss of trust. I agree that the current system does not seem to be set up for this kind of action, but at the end of the day the arbitrators should act in whatever manner they think will best serve the community in this matter, and not get hung up on needless bureaucracy. I think it is very possible to disagree with their decision here on other grounds, but I caution against resorting to a "this is the letter of the law" argument. I don't think Arbcom could function if they were not allowed leeway to interpret the rules to some degree.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm saying these things more as someone who is really interested in the policy implications down the road, rather than as someone who feels strongly about this particular case any more, so please understand that I'm not arguing with you here. We've got a situation where the evidence does not indicate actual misuse of administrative tools, per se. Instead, the Arbs are discussing whether or not we have something that rises to the level of "conduct unbecoming". I'm curious to see what the majority will conclude. You believe that the other parts of the proposed decision demonstrate a loss of trust. I believe that whether or not they demonstrate it is a subjective matter, and we really do not know what the community, as a whole, thinks. The RfC/U did not answer that question, certainly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We never know what the "community as a whole" thinks. Part of the job of being an arbitrator is to sort through the mess an try to make a good determination of what is best for that community though. I also beg to differ when it comes to the RfC. The RfC was hopelessly tainted. It would seem to me the the arbs were capable of filtering some of the taint out of the picture they ended up with, and for that I commend them.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * About the RfC, I think some of us were able to come up with constructive advice for Cirt after filtering out the noise, but I agree with you that the RfC failed to answer anything with respect to de-sysoping or not, and that's really my point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What it come down to is:
 * I can't trust an Admin's Judgement in weighing the arguments in an AFD debate; if evidence shows them using a USENET post as a source in an article The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Was the cited fact under dispute? Otherwise, I don't think this is relevant. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I am hoping I am misunderstanding the Count''s statement here. If not... could a User, Admin, Clerk, Checkuser, Crat, or even Jimbo explain to the Count why that is problematic? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the issue that editors are discussing here is the issue of whether an administrator has the trust of the community—and please understand that I am speaking as someone who feels that administrators should be recalled when they lose that trust—what the Arbs appear to be discussing is not community trust, but "conduct unbecoming". If what this "comes down to" really is evidence of bad sourcing, then it's an open question whether that amounts to conduct unbecoming. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bad sourcing" is using Radar Online, which some times can be reliable but often not. Using commentary in a USENET post is not "bad sourcing" but flagrant disregard for one the most basic principals of Wikipedia. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @ResidentAnthropologist, can you show some examples of misuse of tools, such as an AfD closure you feel to be incorrect? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an Admin who admitted at least to having bad judgment, if not malicious disregard for core policies. Cirt has sidestepped in his statement whether there was Mailcous intent. I have little doubt that the malicious intent in the very least the  article. Tom Cruise is the most most Prominent member of the movement and possibly Second in Command. I can't find a single reason Cirt's abrupt interest in cannabinoids other than it made fun of Tom Cruise and through him Scientology. This completely ignores his promotional piece Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant Griswaldo documented in the Evidence. Jimbo Wales' comment there was "Many of us have puzzled about why an article about a completely run-of-the-mill restaurant with some good local reviews was singled out for an article. Some wondered about a conflict of interest. The fact that there is a Scientology connection explains a lot, and not in a way that is favorable to the cause of this article. Cirt writes a lot about topics connected to Scientology. That there is a connection to Scientology here is quite relevant to any thoughtful understanding of what is going on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 6:55 am, 27 July 2010, Tuesday (UTC−4)" These two things in tandem are problematic, how can Cirt reasonably Administer blocks for Corporate Promotion? and or block people for inserting false information in a BLP? We need Admins that with clean hands carrying out Admins duties. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, we had an Evidence page already, of course, and there was zero evidence of actual misuse of tools per se. My evidence included considerable documentation of proper use of tools. That's what makes this proposed remedy so novel: it simply isn't about misuse of tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, I read from the diff that Lisa Bloom had discussed the cited issue about the possibility of a lawsuit. My point is simply that there is a huge difference between on the one hand deceptive sourcing, making dubious facts appear credible, and on the other hand including certain facts that are cited to sources that are not normally considered to be reliable sources, when the facts themselves are not controversial. The latter is frequently done on Wikipedia, it isn't considered to be a big deal. Count Iblis (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is "the community" and who speaks for it?
Who is "the community" and who speaks for it? It seems to me to be presumptuous, to say the least, for a small number of editors here to assume that they represent the entire Wikipedia community in claiming that Cirt has "lost the trust of the community". He may have lost their trust - if he ever had it - but that is not the same thing. The vast majority of the community are likely not even aware of this page, which has received only a few hundred views per day since the proposed decision was posted. It seems equally presumptuous for arbitrators to claim to be anticipating the community's views by supporting a desysopping proposal in which they refer to "the trust of the community". This is getting perilously close to the much-derided view of ArbCom as GovCom. If there is a real question about whether Cirt still has the support of the community, then why not ask the community through a reconfirmation RFA rather than trying to guess what the community thinks? Prioryman (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I answer that in my vote somewhat. Let's put it plainly. If we put Cirt through a mandatory reconfirmation RfA, do you think that A) Anything but a drama laden circus (from both sides, both supporting and against Cirt), and B) Considering these past events, the findings and remedies that are currently passing, and Cirt's own words that he has fallen short of what is expected of him, that he'd pass? Also, the Arbitration Committee does have jurisdiction of administrator status, and as other arbitrators have said (paraphrasing).. "If we have to go this far to pull Cirt back on the right track, doesn't that mean he has unfortunately fallen short of what is required of Wikipedia's administrators". Please note that if a desysop passes, there's no current restrictions on going to RfA and asking for it back, Cirt CAN go to the community and ask for re-confirmation as an administrator if the de-sysop passes, so we're going down the same track SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a community forum on Cirt's behavior and I seem to remember an old friend of his showing up in disguise to cast aspersions on anyone who dared to speak up. Prioryman, you are the last person I trust to speak for any community I'm a member of. If Cirt does indeed have the community's support he should have no problem running again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been on Wikipedia for longer than any current arbitrator save Coren but, like Cool Hand Luke, I am not aware of any previous example of desysopping someone for their simple editing. Let's be clear about this. There's no suggestion that Cirt has abused his tools, which has previously been the bar for removing the sysop bit. In voting to lower the bar in response to a small number of edits - which, to put it in perspective, constitute about 0.01% of the 100,000+ edits that Cirt has made - you're not only setting a wholly novel precedent, you're also handing a new weapon to opponents of particular admins. I doubt that there is any user on Wikipedia, the present ArbCom members included, who could not be made to look bad if someone was determined enough to go through all of their edits and string them together with a narrative. As Cardinal Richelieu once said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Such a decision will have a chilling effect on current admins and will raise the bar still further in the already-defective RfA process. And as I said, in seeking to anticipate the will of the community you're in danger of supplanting the proper venue for testing whether Cirt still has its support to serve as an admin, namely RfA.


 * I would also disagree with the contention that Cirt is having to be "pulled back on the right track". Cirt has been cooperative throughout this case and voluntarily agreed, not just in response to this case but in response to previous disputes, to limit his editing in particular areas. It is troubling that his willingness to act voluntarily is being given no recognition and that the approach being taken by the ArbCom seems to be increasingly punitive. I might add that because Cirt has not disputed the claims made against him (and given his 500-word limit it's hard to see how he could do so effectively - talk about being hamstrung), we have not had the benefit of testing the evidence or hearing of any mitigating factors. I have no doubt that Cirt just wants to get this over as quickly as possible but it seems grossly unfair not to give him the chance of proving himself under the proposed restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You cannot possibly blame the Arbs or anyone else for the manner in which Cirt has decided to respond to this arbitration or initially to his RfC. Please also remember that while he has not said much he did admit to a bulk of the more serious problems he stood accused of: "I’ve reflected on my past behavior and I realize that these complaints have some validity. I agree that my sourcing practices were inadequate, and that I’ve unwisely included undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs." I do not know if he needs to have the bit taken away personally, but I fail to understand what you base your arguments on.Griswaldo (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not blaming the Arbs. I'm simply noting, as others have, that Cirt's response leaves open questions about the validity of the claims made against him, and that it is wholly unprecedented for the sysop bit to be taken away for simple editing. I'm not even sure that that has even been suggested before. I have deep reservations about the rather casual way in which such a major break from precedent, with potentially very major future implications, has been proposed over the course of a single weekend. Several of the Arbs are also quite clearly troubled by this. Prioryman (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How should the Committee express their views in order to assuage your fears that they are being too "casual" in their decision-making? Couldn't you just imagine to yourself that they are typing at their keyboards with extremely earnest demeanors? Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal was put forward at 03:09 on 4 September 2011 and three more arbitrators had voted in favour within 15 hours. I find it hard to believe that 15 hours is long enough for substantive reflection. This is, literally, a rush to judgement. The tactical vote in favour that Cool Hand Luke has just cast (despite saying "This user's sysop bit has never been an issue") is indicative of the lack of seriousness with which this proposal is being approached. Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, "substantive reflection..." :) Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This remedy was proposed in the Workshop some time ago. Unless the arbitrators simply ignored it at the time it must have infiltrated their consciousness days/weeks ago. Of course days/weeks are not necessary to give "substantive reflection" on a problem anyway, so unless Prioryman has a special pipeline into the thoughts of the Arbs it is difficult to understand what basis he has of accusing them of not taking this seriously enough.Griswaldo (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with this ruling (if it passes) is that a minority of all active admins have far less trust of the community than Cirt has (perhaps a few percent of all admins), and that on more relevant grounds than mere misjudgements when editing articles. So, this can then lead to a flood of ArbCom case requests against such Admins. Count Iblis (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirt would never have passed his RfA if the community had been aware at the time he'd been misrepresenting sources, editing tendentiously, turning BLPs into attack pages, creating blatant advertisements for commercial interests, creating advertisements for political candidates in support of an Anonymous agenda and bullying and hounding his less experienced and less well-connected opponents.

I'm concerned by Prioryman's comment just above: "Cirt's response leaves open questions about the validity of the claims made against him." Is there something Cirt has said that indicates he still hasn't accepted he's behaved improperly, Prioryman? Which behaviours, specifically?

None of this would have happened if Cirt had been given proper guidance by the admin corps from the beginning, and if the community hadn't so readily accepted his non-mea culpas, such as this attempt from the recent RfC/U: "While I don’t believe I’ve substantively breached these requirements, I concede that on occasion my actions have left me open to accusations of having done so." and earlier "I accept that there has been significant criticism relating to my editing of certain pages relating to Scientology." (The reason for my question to Prioryman is disquiet that, somehow, Cirt's latest response is not a clear acknowledgment of wrongdoing.)

Finally, to Prioryman, I'm sick of Cirt's defenders pointing out that he "voluntarily" slinks away from areas where he's been misbehaving, just in time to avoid sanctions, as though it's some kind of virtue. Personally I oppose a topic ban for him. Him sliding away or us topic-banning him misses the point of the problem entirely. What's needed is behaviour change, not a change of scenery. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes Wikipedia work are not the rules, rather the willingness of the editors to work together, and that inevitably involves being able to deal with fundamental disagreements, e.g. using voluntary disengagements. There are plenty of editors and Admins who choose not to edit certain topics because their views on how best to improve articles in the topic area are too far apart from how the present editors and the larger community think these articles should be edited. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that the "community" may become irrelevant for appointing Admins. I've read that Jimbo is going to set up a system that will bypass the usual RFA process for appointing Admins. A panel of experts will assess if an editor is suitable to be an Admin, and they will only focus on relevant issues. Count Iblis (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me just remind you what the ArbCom has found against Cirt: that he "has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices." It's a finding of general wrongdoing, not an endorsement of specific claims against him concerning individual articles, actions and sources. As a result we don't know which of the specific claims made against him have validity. Many of the claims that you mention, such as supposed collaboration with Anonymous, have not even been put forward in evidence (which is not surprising as they appear to be egregiously false). I don't see Cirt's response as "slinking away". As far as I can recall given my limited interactions with him – we've only collaborated substantively on one article, Battlefield Earth (film), years ago – he's always been open to feedback about his editing and his voluntary recusals from topic areas have up to now not been prompted by the threat of sanctions. This is after all the first time he's been at arbitration, isn't it? If someone is willing to acknowledge that their editing has been unsatisfactory and is willing to take action to remedy that, that should be praised, not criticised. As I said, it's disappointing that he is being given no credit for it. Prioryman (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't relying on the arbcom findings. I assert my first paragraph above based on my own observations. I'm more than willing to defend it if you'd like to choose a forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Prioryman. This is after all the first time he's been at arbitration, isn't it? Might that be in no small part because, as you also wrote, his voluntary recusals from topic areas have up to now not been prompted by the threat of sanctions. He followed this same pattern of "voluntary recusals" at the RfC, and now again at the arbitration. In doing so he has offered no defense of his actions. And you question Anthony's claim that this amounts to "slinking away," and you want us to see Cirt's reaction as something deserving credit instead? These things simply do not follow from the very facts you have presented yourself. As to the veracity of the evidence against Cirt, do not think that if you simply add more protestations against them by calling them "egregiously false," that they will truly become so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's up to the person who claims something to be a fact, to demonstrate this. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm not going to rehash the specifics of the evidence, but I will make a few meta observations.


 * First, restrictions are traditionally meant to be preventative, not punitive. Restrictions on Cirt and Jayen for editing topic areas or interacting with each other are meant to prevent future problems. What exactly is being prevented by desysopping, given the lack of evidence of misuse of sysop tools? If being preventative is the objective, isn't 3.4.2 - removal of administrator privileges if problems recur - more likely to be an incentive to prevent future problems?


 * Second, I don't know about the other editors here but personally I don't feel that the evidence presented has shown that there is a widespread problem with Cirt's editing. (This is absolutely not to say that there is no problem). There is a need to look at this in perspective. According to X!'s Edit Counter, Cirt has made a total of 146,379 edits of which 39,549 were to articles - he is the 57th most frequent contributor to Wikipedia . The evidence presented in this case concerned a small number of problematic edits to just 13 articles, a tiny proportion of his total output. Jayen himself said that he considered Cirt "a fine editor outside these topic areas." This suggests only a limited problem of occasional faulty edits to occasional articles, particularly those associated with specific controversial topics.


 * Third, given the limited nature of the evidence, I'm having a hard time seeing how desysopping on the grounds of "conduct unbecoming" is an appropriate response. Jayjg has been mentioned as a comparable example (though he wasn't desysopped). Read the findings in the case in question - you will see that there is in fact no comparison. Jayjg was found to have edit-warred and behaved abusively towards other editors in that case, and had previously been the subject of rulings in four previous cases, including misuse of tools. He was also subjected to editing restrictions. No such findings have been made concerning Cirt on this or on any previous occasion. Jayjg's findings were of widespread problems over a long period. The sole finding against Cirt is that he "placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices." Jayjg was stripped of functionary status because of long-running conduct issues. Cirt has been found to have occasionally engaged in poor writing practices on a small number of articles. The two issues are of very different scales and natures. Desysopping for poor conduct (vandalism has been mentioned as an example) may be appropriate, but surely not for making occasional errors in writing and sourcing. That would be a radical lowering of the bar for desysopping. I doubt if there is a single editor on Wikipedia, the current arbitrators included, who could honestly say that they have never made mistakes with sourcing or writing. Prioryman (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, actually, I'm ambivalent about desysopping. As I said above, I doubt he'd have passed RfA if this evidence had been presented there, so can justify it on those grounds; and it is a rebuke he and others will take seriously, so that's another good reason. (I'm still wondering if he's got the message.) But he hasn't misused the tools, I believe, so it wouldn't be preventative, no. It would be appropriate if there were reasonable concern that the seriousness of his behaviour hasn't been taken on board by him or his apologists. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear about what I said, I never claimed that Cirt has lost the community's trust, but rather, I said that this is a question the previous RfC/U and, most likely, the present arbitration, cannot really answer. Prioryman is correct that a few diehard editors here cannot speak for the community. The Arbs are tasked with discerning community sentiment, and I wish them well, but they have some pretty contradictory evidence to work with. WP:CDARFC was an attempt, that failed, to develop a meaningful way to determine community trust. We still need a way that really works, and this talk page isn't it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman's comment at the beginning of this section. Arbcom seems to be ignoring the policy requirement that administrators model proper behavior. The practice of arbcom to only desysop for abuse of tools is a poor precedent. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cirt voluntarly accepts the remedies, this is different from the more typical case where, say, an editor is being restricted because he is behaving disruptively in some topic area and does not heed the community feedback on his editing so far. In that more typical case, the editor would continue unless stopped by ArbCom. Also Cirt's use of the Admin tools was never a problem.
 * Then there are other ArbCom cases where the behavior of Admins was the core of the problem and yet no one was desysopped. In the CC ArbCom case, the ArbCom case was necessary, only because the CC noticeboard system collapsed because of Admins fighting each other instead of properly adminstrating the topic area. Some Admins defended problematic editors because they shared their views on climate change. That's the worst case of Admin behavior short of overt abuse of tools that one can imagine. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand, but my comment was a general view and not directed at Cirt personally. I feel that generally administrators found to have behaved improperly over a long period of time need to stop being administrators, whether or not they have abused their tools. I would like to see it much easier to both remove administrators and allow people with clean records to become administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy of my email to User:Cool Hand Luke
Hi - Luke

Your vote in the deysopp proposal is a little confusing. Hersfold has added a note and not counted it yet. - Luke, although Cirt has not abused his tools, he has fallen below the standards we aim for in our administrators. I urge you to support the removal of Cirt's administrator status - its so much more correct moving forward to let other users know that there are levels of neutrality and COI and BLP contributions that if you fall below you will have your rights removed. Arbcom supporting Cirt's administration privileges while removing his editing rights to large sections of the project is sending out the wrong message. Forget Jclemens and just leave your support for his deysopping, the political and new age religion restrictions combined with the removal of his advanced rights will send the correct message. - Rob


 * ...after User:Cool Hand Luke clarified his position on wiki in regards to his vote I responded to him, again via email ..

I see you have commented and are actually in opposition to this, I got confused with your spat with User:Jclemens thinking you were in support, anyway at least you have clarified your position. Thanks - Rob


 * - User:Cool Hand Luke commented, "I believe it's helpful for ArbCom to conduct their business publicly unless there's a good reason not to" ..and that I could/should post this on wiki, so I have. These comments I stand by on wiki or in private. I was the person that proposed User:Cirt should be desyopped on the workshop page. I still see the removal of the User:Cirt's advanced privileges as without doubt the clear and correct beneficial position for the project. Off2riorob (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

related comment - The User:Cirt has violated core policies over periods of years. The arbitration committee should not support his continuing on with advanced privileges under the situation that the User:Cirt is restricted from contributing from large parts of the project due to his policy violations, such editing restrictions demands removal of his advanced privileges. Under the circumstances this project just does not need his administrative actions and the same goes for other experienced editors with advanced privileges that violate core policy repeatedly - "ow they didn't abuse the tools" is an extremely doubtful assertion of community support. It can be easily assumed that it was the users administrator status that assisted and supported his policy violations. Such violating contributors continuing with advanced privileges supported by the arbitration committee imo degrades the whole project. There are more than enough good faith policy compliant users wanting to assist as administrators with out the committee supporting users that have violated policy for years. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Violating core policies is in principle allowed per WP:IAR, so violations of core policies by themselves are not evidence of misconduct. The converse is also true, someone can edit well within the core policies, yet the edits can be seen to be inappropriate. If the editor does not heed the feedback he gets he can be blocked despite the editor being "right" (e.g. regarding NPOV) and all the other editors being "wrong". Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerical note
The top of this talk page shows Elen as recused, but the "roll call" portion of the motion to close shows her as still to vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen has only very recently (less than 3 hours ago) set herself as recused - the clerks will update the clerical notes in due course. – xeno talk  18:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that must be why I just noticed it! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I had said right at the start that I felt I should recuse from this case, as I had expressed negative opinions about Cirt previously (and somewhat forcefully) in other parts of the project, but I hadn't noticed that I wasn't showing as recused here until the clerks started chasing me to vote. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider desysop remedy
I would ask the Arbitrators to please reconsider the desysop remedy.

In the Scientology case, ArbCom issued a Finding of Fact about me: From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt does not appear to have deliberately misused administrative tools.

In regards to this remedy, Casliber stated: ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision&diff=448648153&oldid=448603068 Oppose - documented misuse of tools not in evidence. Hence not a solution or remedy to an existing problem. Cirt will be watched for editing transgressions, which will be sufficient.] The remedy Removal of Administrator privileges if problems recur'' is passing, and would impact me if issues came up after this case. My intention as far as content work in the future is to focus on improving U.S. Supreme Court cases. As far as admin tool usage, I would strive to stick to my prior good practice as noted above, stay clear of any tool use at all in any topics I edit, and help with non-controversial clearing of backlogs, AFDs, page protections, and AIV response.

Thank you for your time, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition: I'd respectfully agree to any recall provisions suggested by the Committee. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, if my subsequent actions after the conclusion of this case are questioned, I will hold myself accountable to six editors with over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure (per suggested guideline at Administrators open to recall). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't often publicly comment on cases in-depth, but here, I want to share my reasons for voting as I did. People may not agree with me, but I believe that administrators should put the needs of the project first, and that administrators should be trusted and respected - they should be able (in almost all cases) to put their personal motivations aside. Administrators should not just understand policy - they should follow it wherever it's sensible to do so. At present, seeing the evidence that's been put forward, I simply do not trust you to follow policy, and I cannot support giving the tools to those whom I do not trust. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting. The other remedies are preventative and send me a very strong message. I will follow policy. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I would very much like to know is why you did not follow policy before.  Roger Davies  talk 13:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cirt: I really would appreciate a reply to this question.  Roger Davies  talk 19:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear about this too. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I do not see how an administrator can work effectively while under a topic ban. My position on this issue is uniform for all administrators, not specific to your case.  You participated in prior arbitration related to Scientology and knew very well what might result from any editing shenanigans in this topic area.  If your editing was proper, or perhaps included a few excusable mistakes, you should have defended yourself or asked to be excused.  If your editing was seriously improper, then you must resign as administrator.  This will be the very best thing you can do for your reputation. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jehochman. I have no position on Cirt as an editor and have not been following this case. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

On controversial topics it has been easier to look in hindsight and see areas where I could have behaved better with regard to following policy. With new articles I create, I often seek out community feedback through peer review processes, and welcome constructive feedback. I try to take community feedback onboard, and I often willingly step away from areas I'd been previously engaged in, and specifically back off from articles and allow others in the community to examine them (my watchlist now only has 10 articles on it). When I received feedback from the community, I didn't get involved in edit wars or otherwise try to impose my interpretation on others. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Jclemens has emailed the Arbcom-l list - he has technical troubles at the moment, so can't log in. However, he would like to pass on the message that "I've read his appeal, and that it has not swayed my thinking on the matter". I am sure he will comment further once he's logged in successfully. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit: Jclemens is stuck off-wiki for potentially as long as two or three days. If he has any more comments, they'll get relayed by myself or another arbitrator. He's still contactable by email. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)