Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence

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

Inactive:
 * 1) Iridescent
 * 2) Risker

Recused
 * 1) PhilKnight

Evidence request
I would like to see evidence from any editor, on any topic, that demonstrates the following:
 * One or more individual editor(s) edit BLPs in a nominally policy-compliant matter yet the combined effect of a pattern of such edits is
 * to bias NPOV through UNDUE emphasis or similar political slants...
 * or to manipulate search engine results to either promote or deemphasize a particular reult...
 * ... and there is an ideological, financial, or other inappropriate motivation for doing so.

Does that help clarify the nature of evidence I'm seeking? Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you accept as evidence of "ideological, financial, or other inappropriate motivation"? Do our usual caveats regarding outing come into play or will there be some leeway in this particular case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All OUTING evidence should be submitted to the committee privately, with implicit permission to forward to the accused for rebuttal. If you're just interested in illustrating that a problem exists and should be rendered into principles which give notice that such activity is not appropriate, without seeking any sort of sanctions for violating past COI or other existing behavioral expectations, you need not single out any one editor as a "problem". Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence I already amassed presented was aimed at establishing the existence of a clear problem, which I rather think it did. Would I have to delete all of that in order to "make a case" against one or more specific editors now? Or make a case about one or more specific topics now?  Would the deadline be extended for such evidence?  Would such cites be allowable when discussing the findings yet to be proposed?  Or would each editor be allowed one set of evidence on "general evidence that the problem exists" and a second set discussing specific editors or specific topics? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, not necessary, yes, and "if that tickles your fancy". Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

evidence v. attacks
One editor appears to misapprehend the use of the evidence page, alas. Might someone apprise him of what the case is about and that the evidence should reasonably be applicable to the case? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think an Arbitrator has already addressed that problem: . MastCell Talk 01:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Collect was referring to this.Griswaldo (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when is it OK to edit the remarks of others?
Just now John Vandenberg edited Cla68's evidence. Is this really the proper way to go about accomplishing that end? People post all kinds of claims without diffs, all of the time. I'm pretty sure I'd be blocked if I removed those claims based solely on that premise. Isn't the proper thing to do to discuss it with Cla68, or to refute his claim, or to point out that it is merit-less, or whatnot? I agree in principle that unfounded accusations, and false statments ought not to be made, but I really dislike double standards. Where were you, John, when Prioryman flat out lied at the RfC about his involvement with Scientology? Who has removed those comments?Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, the arbitration committee owns these pages and can set rules for their use. You ought not call people liars either.  I don't understand the basis for your claim. Keep in mind that an assertion without evidence is often a personal attack, and as such may be removed.  Jehochman Talk 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the comment from Cool Hand Luke at User talk:Cla68, and my comment that follows. This case is about BLPs. I am sorry that I didn't see Prioryman's comments at the RfC which you are referring to. Provide evidence to justify Prioryman being a focus of this case, and I have no problem with allowing additional evidence which indicates Prioryman lied somewhere about his RtV & history. I doubt that the committee is going to tackle RtV in this case, as that is a complicated and unclear policy area, but lying would be taken into account by the committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's not the aim that I have a problem with, but the methods. You did not indicate in your edit summary that you were removing it because it was out of scope, as you are now saying, but instead because it was not supported by a diff. That is also exactly what I'm criticizing above. If the edit summary was a mistake then so be it, I'll accept your current explanation regarding the matter, but please understand what I was taking issue with.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not remove it because it is out of scope, however I am concerned that it was not appropriate evidence given the scope and other evidence currently on the table. It was invalid evidence as it was without diffs, and that is why I removed it.  As I said above, I am happy for Cla68 to continue this line of evidence, with diffs, but I am wanting to see better/more evidence of why it is relevant to this case.  I want to see actual manipulation of BLPs, or at least supporting the manipulation of BLPs.  So far the only relevant evidence I see is that Prioryman isn't convinced that templates cause google bombing and he stuck his oar into the Cirt/Jayen dispute.  I havent seen evidence that Prioryman supported any edit by Cirt which violates policy or decency.  I havent looked at every diff in Cla68's first two bullets; if some of them are relevant to the scope of this case, they need to be described. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So you have carte blanche to remove any claims that are not supported by diffs? Do I have this right as well, or is it just you, the committee?Griswaldo (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is ARBPOL. Typically only arbitrators and clerks remove inadmissible evidence, however uninvolved people occasionally do it.  Parties need to challenge the evidence, and a clerk typically reviews the evidence and removes it when they agree it is inadmissible. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)It's in the evidence already and the Arbs know precisely what it means. Prioryman turned out to be a former editor who's involvement in Scientology was such that he has sanctions from a prior case related to Scientology. At the RfC he claimed no involvement in that topic area. What would you call that Jehochman? As to the Arbs "owning" these pages I was not aware of that. Perhaps someone can point me to the policy or guideline that outlines such ownership. I was under the impression that one was not to edit the comments of others. I understand moving, or hatting whole sections which are deemed to be inappropriate, and also removing, hatting, or striking text that is in violation of policy, but this does not fit any of those things. The rest of us have to abide by the principle of not editing the remarks of others, and removing half a sentence surely equates to doing just that. So again, please show me where the Arbs are exempt from this.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to respond to that last point, because it's something that Cla68 has seriously misled others about. I never claimed uninvolvement in the topic area. I said that I don't edit the articles under discussion, which is completely accurate. I also said that I was not a party to any of the disputes being raised in the RfC , which is again completely accurate - I do not edit any articles in any of the topic areas being discussed and I've not been involved in any ongoing disputes about them. The fact that I had been involved in an arbitration case in one topic area over two years ago does not mean that I have any involvement in that topic area now. I've commented on the evidence presented in the RfC; I've not edited or disputed any of the articles in question and I'd never even heard of the vast majority of them before they were raised in the RfC. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know who Lyndon LaRouche is? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard the name and I know he's regarded as a loon, but I couldn't tell you anything about the man or his beliefs. I've never read or edited his article or anything related to him. Prioryman (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So this comment was indeed untrue? "I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are." Can you please explain that. When someone tells you that they don't have the faintest idea of who someone else is, it is completely unreasonable to believe that it will be understood that you've heard about them before and that you know they are regarded as a loon.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)You, Prioryman, also claimed directly to ResidentAnthropologist that you are "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults." If you want people to accept that as an editor under sanction when it comes to Scientology making such a statement should be considered anything but deception, I'm speechless. As to the rest of your claims above I find them down right insulting. You do not presently, in your new persona, edit in the topic area, but your comments clearly lead people to believe that you never have. You being correct on a technicality hinges upon no one knowing who you once were. If you don't consider that deceitful I don't know what would be.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My statement was and is entirely accurate. I'm under a voluntary restriction not to edit any Scientology BLPs. My restriction does not prevent me from commenting on any such BLPs, including on their talk pages, but I've not knowingly edited any such BLP for the entire period of the restriction. I've not been involved in any editing of such BLPs or their talk pages in two years. Moreover, at the time the restriction was agreed, I was involved in no disputes involving any such BLPs or any other articles in the topic area. No findings of battlefield conduct were made against me. The most recent BLP edit in the topic area in which my edits were disputed (not at the time, but later by the ArbCom) was this one three and a half years ago. You're reading into my statement what you want to read into it. Prioryman (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understood your statement in a manner that any reasonable person would have. What you are now doing is arguing that we should have understood it differently.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, should we take the removal of that particular piece of evidence to mean that no such deal was reached between ChrisO/Prioryman and ArbCom? If that is the case, it suggests that ArbCom is not holding ChrisO to their previous sanctions, which seems unlikely. It should be easy enough for you to simply state the terms of the arramgement so that this dispute can be settled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, please dont arrive at that conclusion, and I can't immediately publish the agreement. Luckily that isnt needed.   If you can find a violation of a prior sanction, you can let us know about it.
 * We usually see or hear about restarters who violate their prior sanctions fairly quickly, but we dont watch every edit of every user who restarts. More often they go back to their old stomping grounds in a more careful and policy-compliant way, and this is generally considered to be A Good Thing, despite this being a potential "avoid scrutiny" problem.  The difficult cases are where someone has restarted, returns to the same areas with a better approach, but they slowly slip back into their old ways.  It looks bad when the community sees edits that show the new account acting like the old account.  Not suggesting that happened here.  Just saying we often look like twits because restarters dont abide by their prior sanctions perfectly, and we dont always notice the infractions. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems unnecessarily obfuscatory to say that one should not assume that ChrisO had not agreed to abide by prior restrictions but not to state that they had agreed to abide by those restrictions. You removed a very specific claim (that ChrisO could "resume editing if he promised to stay away from Climate Change articles") - even if you are unwilling to reveal the entire agreement, I cannot see what harm it would do if you simply confirm that one point. Or refute it. Removing it in the manner that you did just makes people wonder why it is an issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that evidence page is not for claims without diffs. If ArbCom's role in the Prioryman RtV is seen to be important to this case, a party can request a brief from us about it (the request would go on the workshop page). John Vandenberg (chat) 22:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From the Climate Change decision:
 *  The "Right to Vanish" is a courtesy afforded to editors intending to withdraw permanently from editing Wikipedia. It is not intended as a temporary leave or absence, or as a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction over one's past behavior. Editors who invoke this right should expect that, should they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and any possible sanctions will be reapplied.

As I read this, if a user invoking RtV reappears, they should expect their previous identity will be fully restored and any possible sanctions will be reapplied. Is this a misreading of the ArbCom position? Was this principle reversed subsequently? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that principle has been reversed. Arbcom restriction apply to the person, not the account they were using at the time.  The remedies regarding ChrisO are carried over to Prioryman. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the user seems to have reappeared, ought not their "previous identity (be) fully restored" ? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that the sanctions carry forward. I've seen a lot of clamoring lately for "unvanishing," but where has this ever happened? It would be a punitive policy, pointless when everybody knows about the connection, and counterproductive to people want to keep their real name out of public attention. For example, say a user exercises RTV as part of an agreement to leave the site, then socks numerous times over the subsequent years&mdash;usually to correct perceived BLP problems&mdash;what purpose does it serve to "unvanish," name, and shame that individual? Will it make the user more or less disruptive? This is not a hypothetical. I don't think the best course a close call; it's simply not productive to "unvanish." Cool Hand Luke 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is only true if someone stays away from areas where they have already been sanctioned and behaviors they have already been sanctioned for. If they do so they are unlikely to be recognized in the first place, and calls for unvanishing are even less likely to ever be heard. If you're hearing demands to unvanish an account it is most likely, as in this situation, that someone has reappeared in areas of past conflict and past sanctions and has behaved in a less than stellar fashion. Arbcom does not police the entire encyclopedia on it's own. For the most part it is up to editors to report problems, and admins to deal with those problems. How, pray tell, can this happen effectively when vanished editors appear in their old battleground areas but the rest of us don't know about and cannot easily find out about their old sanctions? So to repeat, as a general rule, by the time people are yelling about unvanishing it's 99% likely that unvanishing is necessary because the vanished editor cannot be trusted to stay away from old conflicts. That, I think most of us would argue, is certainly the case here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Calls of unvanishing are even less likely to be heard if they don't vanish in the first place! You seem to be trying to say something else, something more like "that was a boneheaded thing for ArbCom to do." I understand that.
 * I agree that users can only patrol sanctions they're aware of, and in this sense, the account is already "unvanished." How would undeleting the old user page and pestering the devs to move his edits back improve Wikipedia? Cool Hand Luke 13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case at hand the "new persona" denied having any connection with a topic which was clearly an errant claim on his part. Yes - the user should be "shamed" for making such deliberate statements designed to hide the truth. Yes, the specific ArbCom dictum says he should be prepared to have his original persona restored.  If not here, then I doubt ArbCom really means what it said :(.   Further, it will indicate to future RtV cases that the words have meaning, else no one will ever expect them to be invoked.  Not doing so will likely increase the odds of future cases where the new persona fibs about what he has edited in the past.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that ArbCom will make a statement that Wikipedia pages should be used for shaming&mdash;in a BLP case, no less? I agree that the deception is a problem, I don't see ham-fisted attempts to "unvanish" a userpage as a solution. A userpage is not equivalent to an "identity" anyway; the identity is now known. Cool Hand Luke 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that users can only patrol sanctions they're aware of, and in this sense, the account is already "unvanished." I disagree entirely. No one but Arbcom knew about this until hacked private emails were posted off-cite showing the connection. He is not "unvanished" to anyone who hasn't been following this situation closely and/or who doesn't know about Prioryman's past. As long as the link isn't made clearly in some fashion you cannot expect editors to be capable of making this connection the next time he shows up in an area from his past. Let me turn this around on your CHL, and the rest of the Arbs, if he is, as you claim, already "unvanished" then why not make it official? The only reason to keep him vanished is to protect him from harm, but if the situation is as you say that is no longer necessary. You can't possibly be arguing that you are willing to keep him vanished, and in so doing making it harder in the future for people to understand who he is when he repeats the behavior that brought us to this, simply to keep a little pie off of his face. This cannot come before the good of the project and the community, and besides he walked his own face straight into this pie. It's not your job to protect his feelings.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he's not vanished, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I imagine that the decision in this case will include at least and an acknowledgement of the connection and deal with violations of existing sanctions&mdash;assuming there are any. If there are violations, I suppose that there may even be new sanctions. This is as well-publicized as any ArbCom-imposed sanction is. I simply doubt that it helps the encyclopedia to move tens of thousands of edits back, etc. Cool Hand Luke 14:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there are many different ways to make the connection. One is simply a disclaimer on the user page with a link to the editing history of the vanished account. If technically speaking "unvanishing" means merging the accounts and restoring the edits, or something like that, and it's a serious hassle then I agree it isn't necessary, as long as the connection is made in some manner on his user page. Prioryman would show a great deal of respect for the community as a whole if he took it upon himself to do this without being told to, though he hasn't yet, and in the end he should be forced to do something like this.Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I agree with CHL that "unvanishing" the ChrisO account accomplishes little (and seems unnecessarily punitive), but I also think that the community needs to be able to connect the sanctions with the editor. Perhaps a note on the ChrisO userpage identifying the account(s) now subject to those sanctions would be appropriate? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine that there will be a finding like "Prioryman is a returning user who is under the following sanctions...", which would simply repeat the sanctions for the new account, but your suggested approach would work too. Cool Hand Luke 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concern about removing some of my evidence section, but I don't mind that John did so. I was going to remove most of the editorializing myself anyway.  I will be reviewing Prioryman's entire editing history to see if he has abused any BLPs.  If he has, some more diffs will be showing up in my evidence section.  If I don't find anything, then nothing more is likely to be added and I'll get started on Jehochman and Will Beback.  Jehochman won't take very long but Will Beback is a different story. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68, please stop casting aspersions about me that are not supported by any evidence. I will not have you talking trash about me over and over again.  I did nothing wrong with respect to BLPs.  I understand that you are mad at me for disagreeing with you about the Cirt RFC, but these attempts to smear and retaliate against me are not appropriate. Jehochman Talk 14:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Question to Prioryman about what he meant
Above you make several claims about what you meant when you stated that you were not involved. Can you please offer an explanation of what you meant by this comment, especially the part I have put in italics. Who, Prioryman, did you mean by "all the rest?" I thought you meant, "all the rest of the people/groups referred to in this RfC." I was lead to believe this especially since you included "well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously"). Once again, I would argue that this is the only reasonable way for anyone to have understood your comment, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about it. Then I'd like to know if you didn't "have the faintest idea who" the following people, groups or concepts related to cults and mentioned rather prominently in the evidence of the RfC were: Did you really not have the faintest idea who these people were? I note that you never explicitly said you didn't have the faintest idea of what Scientology was, but that was pretty much implied as well, again especially since you went out of your way to say you clearly knew who Tom Cruise was. Can you please answer to this?Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Let's be clear, I don't edit those articles and I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are (well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously)."
 * Aaron Saxton
 * Everyone mentioned here - List of Scientologists
 * Mark Bunker
 * Jason Beghe
 * Xenu

In law, a witness who is shown to have been deliberately "errant" on one matter about which he provides evidence may well have all of his evidence considered "errant." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to bandy words with a lynch mob. I will post my rebuttals in due course on the evidence page. It belongs there, not here. Prioryman (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One person asking you a straight question about a contentious claim you made does not a "lynch mob" make. I'm asking you this question here, and not on the evidence page. IMO, this situation isn't ripe for the evidence page anyway, it doesn't relate to this case. It just happens that the closest thing to a place that the Arbs were willing to allow this to be discussed when they played hot potato with it was this case. You ought to simply answer these questions and deal with the issue as it doesn't seem to go away. And how could it go away given the damage already done at the RfC, damage that will not be reversed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, when you have a question about what a person meant, you can ask them, and they can answer you or not. You claim it's a "straight question," but I doubt I would answer anything so abrasive myself.
 * A user's evidence speaks for itself with citations and diffs, or it doesn't; no need for self-appointed interrogators here. Cool Hand Luke 13:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Self-appointed interrogators?" Well then I suppose his lies have spoken for themselves. If you ask me to refrain from calling them lies, then I will point you to this conversation, in which he has refused to prove otherwise. I have no problem with him saying nothing, as long as we're not shouted at for calling an untruth what it is. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Refusing to answer to your satisfaction is not equivalent to lying. I never asked you to stop calling a liar, but now I know not to take you seriously when you do.
 * Honestly, his actions speak for themselves; I cannot fathom why you wish to distract from that objective issue (that he appears to have acted to mislead people) by repeatedly beating us over the head with it and calling him a "liar" for not satisfactorily answering your nasty, sarcastic, and offensive characterizations. From my own experience, you get less mileage out of the "he's a dirty liar" approach&mdash;even (and maybe especially) if it's true.
 * Be clinical. Be precise. You're more likely to be trusted if you are. Or not. Up to you. Cool Hand Luke 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said "he's a dirty liar," nor do see any "nasty, sarcastic and offensive characterizations." Can you please provide diffs for that characterization of my comments? I have only ever said that he "lied," something that seems rather obvious to a great many of us. You might not personally have told me not to call him a liar, but others have. What you are doing is asking me to stop calling him on the untruths he has uttered. Also, while I appreciate the essence of your advice concerning clinical precision, I have a very hard time understanding why you would offer that advice while engaging in hyperbole yourself. I have said that someone lied, but I have also provided diffs to support that statement. I ask you to please provide diffs or refactor your comments since at this time they appear only as personal attacks. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not claim you called him a dirty liar; no personal attack was intended. I just think that it is not a persuasive rhetorical style to insist that no word will do but "lies," and that you are proving his lies by asking insulting questions.
 * As for your insulting and sarcastic questions, please re-read the first post, and imagine if it was actually asked of you. "Did you really not have the faintest idea who these people were?" This isn't the sort of question you pose to someone when you're actually trying to understand what they meant; it's pure point scoring. I find it hard to believe that you though he would actually answer that. Contrary to your claim, his non-answer provides no additional support for the proposition that he lied. Focus on the untruths, not his failure to respond to your highly pointed questions. I hope you understand. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the comment you find "nasty, sarcastic and offensive?" Upon reviewing it I will admit that it might be over the top, and a product of emotion rather than the clinical precision you are encouraging. I should have expressed that thought differently, and I am sorry for bringing additional heat to the conversation by not doing that. However, I still think your characterization is also over the top, and my comment is simply a frustrated and expressive reaction to the obfuscation coming from someone who has clearly not told the truth. I have still only said he lied. Also, I would like you to appreciate the fact that the anger here comes from being repeatedly denounced as a witch-hunter, and a member of a lynch mob at the RfC by someone who wasn't being honest about who he was. No Arbs or admins came by to reign in any of those comments, nor the comments by others likening anyone who presented evidence against Cirt to Nazis. Yet now, when Prioryman is pressed on his behavior this is the response. Please appreciate how that might make someone even more frustrated. Cheers..Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. Please just answer the question.  What did you mean?  If you were skirting around the truth, just say so, and demonstrate a willingness to do a better job in the future.  Aside from speaking the truth, you also want to make sure those reading what you say come away with an accurate view, otherwise they are going to feel really angry if they get the impression that you were trying to mislead them. If you were previously involved in Scientology content disputes with a different username, you should have disclosed that during the RFC.  It's a disservice to the whole RFC process when a  WP:SCRUTINY violating account turns up and muddies the waters. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, if your evidence section says something like, "I undertook Right to Vanish because of harassment I was suffering. I was wrong to abuse multiple accounts, however, and apologize.  It won't happen again.  Also, I was wrong to make misleading statements about my editing history, and wrong to make personal attacks against other editors involved in the RfC.  I apologize and promise not to do it again.  Just like most of you, I am addicted to editing Wikipedia, and don't have any plans to stop in the near future.  I will, however, promise not to abuse any more BLPs, engage in activism in any topic area, and avoid casting aspersions on the motivations of editors I happen to disagree with.  If I break this promise, I expect not to any longer enjoy the privilege of editing Wikipedia.  Cheers."
 * If you make a statement like this, I for one, will ask that everyone back off and leave you alone. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is despicable to humiliate another person this way. Please do not try to force somebody else to apologize. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence closing
The original notice I received at the opening of this case said that the evidence phase would end on August 16. I have not seen any requests to extend that deadline. Is the evidence phase now closed?  Will Beback   talk    04:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have finished the Prioryman evidence. It will probably take me a couple more days to finish Jehochman and Will Beback. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You were informed of the deadline on August 2. You have been active on Wikipedia every day since then. You did not ask for an extension prior to the expiration of the deadline. You ignored specific requests from me to file your evidence promptly. I see no reason why an extension should be granted now.   Will Beback    talk    05:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the Committee's forbearance. Being a bewildered foreigner trying to make it in another country while juggling work and family demands but still sparing some time to help build the 'pedia takes its toll. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you a week ago to post your evidence promptly, and you ignored my requests then. Your living situation hasn't changed in the past month. You have been doing plenty of editing to other pages, including dozens of edits to a three-year-old RFCU. You obviously did not consider this case to be a priority. It is unfair to keep the case open past its regular deadline without a good reason.    Will Beback    talk    06:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My living situation hasn't changed? Will, you must have no idea how hot it can get in late July and August in central Japan.  Plus, the humidity.  Then, add the mosquitos and the Bon insanity...  Anyway, I appreciate the Committee giving us a few extra days to present evidence.  It should result in a more complete and effective decision. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The heat and humidity haven't stopped you from all of your other editing on Wikipedia. You even found the time to create an attack page. Furthermore, you have posted 74 diffs already, so there is no room left for new ones about other editors. Unless it's been your intention to post evidence then take it down, you can't add any more evidence at this time. I would strongly protest any after-the-fact extension for someone who has ignored requests to post evidence in a timely manner, and who only finds excuses for his delays after the deadline has passed and after I've asked that the deadline be enforced.   Will Beback    talk    06:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The page at issue was kept at MfD as not being an "attack page". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A substantially altered page was kept. I was referring to the version Cla68 created when it was supposedly too hot and humid for him to prepare his promised evidence.   Will Beback    talk    21:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * きびし　だ　な! Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Other people have things to do. Your delay will make it very hard for me to respond promptly. Once I finally learn why you named me I will need a fair chance to research and prepare my evidence.   The next few weeks will be exceptionally busy. I'd rather be excused from this case dear arbitrators if my response is not essential. Please let me know. Jehochman Talk 09:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not sure how strict that "75 diff rule" is. If it is strictly enforced, I can still meet it by taking the text from all of Jehochman's and Will's diffs that I disapprove of, posting them all combined in a single edit to the sandbox, then posting that as a single diff to my evidence section. Cla68 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be cheating. Rules are for everyone, including you.  I insist on strict enforcment of deadlines and evidence limits.  This case is like a bad comedy routine, where I'm the schlemazel. Jehochman Talk 09:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The committee has generally appeared to be tolerant with regard to deadlines in past cases - the arguments above (along with the earlier claims that "no one has presented evidence" etc. are not going to help in making for a collegial arbitration procedure. The first principle is collegiality and not confrontation - else I suspect the committee members might well look at behaviour during the case to be actionable sua sponte (fancy talk for "the arbitrators are neither deaf nor blind"). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This case is bogus from the start because it does not have a clear scope, and the list of parties is purely arbitrary. There was no showing of past dispute resolution among the litigants.  As such, I have very little patience for the committee wasting my time with this process, and insist that all deadlines and limits be firmly enforced to minimize the wasting of my time. Jehochman Talk 11:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Um -- calling the case "bogus" is unapt to affect the case.  Ignore the case if you feel it is bogus - you are unlikely to face any penalties at all for doing so.  Really.   The penalty for the committee not following through on the case will be dozens of future cases based on BLP violations.  I suggest the inconvenience to you of simply ignoring the case is not outweighed by such future cases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bring some of those intransigent cases to RFAR! What are you waiting for?  If there are unresolved BLP issues, let's fix them.  Having a ill-defined case like this one is the wrong way to go about it.  This case is going to cause more disputes than it resolves, a net harm to the project. Jehochman Talk 11:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ROFL!  The fact is the problems involve hundreds of BLPs  (perhaps thousands) -- are you really saying I should start hundreds of RFARs for single cases?   Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? I am not aware of this, but why don't you pick a group of exemplar articles that have been diddled badly, and present them?  ArbCom doesn't need to see every article.  A few solid examples will suffice to lay down principles and while they are at it they can sanction some of the worst offenders.  That would hopefully be sufficient to encourage everybody else to improve their practices. Jehochman Talk 11:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I stayed in the limits prescribed. If you will note, I also asked whether additional cites would be proper in the findings area - and was told "yes."   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I have no issue with anything you've done. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally (not always, see WP:ARBCC), the evidence page is not closed even after the deadline. There are no guarantees that Arbitrators will choose to read anything posted after the deadline. A party above asked whether they would be expected to respond to something posted after the deadline. I would say that it would be in their best interest to respond to smaller points, and ask Arbitrators to close off the evidence page if large amounts of evidence is still coming in. Cla68, the diff limit is fairly strict, with a little bit of leeway if need be. If you want more than a 10% leeway, you should ask the Arbitrators. NW ( Talk ) 15:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've waited, waited, and waited to know why I was named as a party. This proceeding is irregular, and I am not going to respond to Cla68's evidence that he has saved for the last moment.  When naming somebody he should have the evidence in hand at that moment, and not play games by withholding it for tactical advantage (last minute surprise, denying the target of his attacks a chance to have their response read).  If the arbitrators have any questions for me, my talk page is open. Jehochman Talk 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd thought that cases like WP:ARBCC were why stricter deadlines were put into place. If this really a deadline then I don't know why all the parties were told to add their evidence by August 16.
 * Cla68 is also proposing to circumvent the 50 diff limit by posting a large amount of evidence on a user page. I can certainly understand the difficulty in staying under 50 diffs, but adding large amounts evidence, all new, days after the evidence phase has (purportedly) closed would be an abuse of the process.   Will Beback    talk    20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The subpage issue was also a problem in ARBCC. I think we would like parties to request permission for extended evidence; we should probably stick to that. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am disgruntled at Cla68's tactics here. He has dumped a mass of diffs about me on the evidence page, the latest just this morning - three days after the ostensible deadline. It is going to take me some time to read through them and I have no idea if he is done yet. I completely agree with Jehochman's comments - this is simply unfair. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the ARBCC evidence talk pages, I see that Cla68 was accused of circumventing deadlines and posting limits, due in part to one post in which he presented a large amount of evidence in a talk page thread. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence/Archive_2 There may to be a pattern here which should not be repeated.   Will Beback    talk    22:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is sanctionable wrongdoing it should be possible to post half a dozen clearly explained diffs, rather than a wall of unanotated diffs that mean nothing to the casual observer. Just choose the best diffs and explain them.  If a concise presentation piques the Committee's interest, they can always ask for more.  It is unfair to bury the accused with a mass of unsorted, unexplained evidence and force them to wade through it.  It is also unfair to ask people to respond to an ever evolving set of evidence.  Don't request arbitation and throw around accusations unless you have your evidence organized and ready to go.  I recommend that we simply ignore Cla68's evidence as unscrutable or tardy.  If there is a pattern of wrongdoing that is worthy of arbitration, surely other editors would notice it too, not just Cla68.  Some of the other evidence sections are well organized and clear.  Jehochman Talk 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have evidence Lined up for weeks. I been just as confused as you and Will on the scope, Cla68 got tired of waiting for arbcom to clarify the scope and added his. Mine will probably be posted tomorrow. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC).
 * RA, the message on your talk page says, in bold letters, Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes.  What did you think that meant?   Will Beback    talk    03:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All kidding aside, that is the main reason my evidence subission was delayed, because I thought it all should have gone in the Jayen/Cirt case and was awaiting clarification. I'll try to add the rest this weekend.  If the Committee chooses not to accept it, it's no big deal, I'll just save it all for later dispute resolution. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the dispute you think needs resolved?   Will Beback    talk    03:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added an evidence section after the deadline, but if a hard line is drawn I can accept that. Mostly I'm concerned with the principles involved, and I could just submit those in the Workshop if need be. Wnt (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you did because I just found out about this and had a humdinger of a BLP abuse example to provide. I regard it as the textbook example of just how BLP can be abused as it has everything-the BLP claimer spamming 130 (yes that is one hundred and thirty) posts to four editors, removing talk page comments, edit warring, escalation to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, and all of it involving material on the talk page regarding if we should use a reference on a man dead since 1948.  Some of the people here (including two of the arbitrators) were involved in that mess and hopefully they remember it as well as I do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence churning
Cla68 has been adding and subtracting evidence from his submission repeatedly. Since he started editing the evidence page he has added 91 diffs or other links, even though the limit is 50. He currently has 65 links up, and he has he wants add more evidence if the deadline is not enforced. The only way he could do while staying under the diffs limit is by removing yet more of his current links to make room for new ones. While I realize that it sometimes takes a few edits to get one's evidence right, Cla68 seems to be abusing the editing process.

This appears to be part of a pattern. In the ARBCC case he posted 313 links and diffs, even though the nominal limit was 100.Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence He has also dragged out cases interminably. He continued to add evidence in Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV for four months after the case opened. Cla68 is a talented and experienced Wikipedia user who has written a number of featured articles and has participated in many ArbCom cases. He is capable of following rules, and is not shy about asking that they be enforced on other people. I therefore request that Cla68 stop churning evidence and adhere to the limits and deadlines imposed on all parties.  Will Beback   talk    07:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Entirely the province of the committee, and not in our area at all - we are supposed to deal with the issues and not muddy things with extraneous charges.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm bringing it to the ArbCom's and clerks' attention. Behavior during Arbitration is often a factor in final remedies.   Will Beback    talk    07:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it Collect, I'm used to it. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla68's evidence is now up to 138 links, not including those he posted and deleted, and he says there's more to come. Has the limit on diffs been waived along with the deadline? Are there any limits to this case?  Will Beback   talk    02:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

AGK editing of my evidence section
. Committee? Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the comment he made, but I'm not sure about the outright deletion; if parties want to spend their section on non sequiturs, that's their prerogative.
 * Addressing the sections above, I have some suggestions for you, Cla68:
 * If you think there should be an extension for evidence, just ask for it. The C-JN case was extended for quite a while, and it was supposed to precede this case. Given the state of the evidence, I think the committee would consider an extension if a party requested it. (This is my own view only.)
 * If you need more space for evidence, ask for it. While I don't understand what this Jehochman stuff is supposed to show, we would probably grant more words for evidence if it was actually directed toward BLP POV, COATRACKS, and OWNERSHIP. Please don't link to evidence subpages.
 * Try to focus on the core of the case. We accepted a case on BLP manipulation, not critiquing RFC closings. Cool Hand Luke 00:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CHL, this Jehochman, Prioryman, and Will Beback stuff should have been in the Cirt/Jayen case, because that's where they are related, not here. I'm posting this stuff here because I was told to.  Where do I ask for an evidence extension and a waiver for the 50 diff rule? Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On the latter point, CHL, if the case is supposed to be about BLP manipulation then why has Cla68 been permitted to post a mass of diffs that have nothing to do with BLP manipulation? Literally not one of them? It seems to me that a lot of side issues are being dragged in here and the scope, such as it is, is already being ignored. Someone posted earlier about their fears that this case would become a free-for-all in which the scope could cover anything. Well, that seems to have already happened. As for Cla68's request for an extension and waiver, how is it fair to grant him special treatment? There should be a level playing field here. Prioryman (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to resolve this stuff now that it has been aired. Cla68 and I used to be friendly, and I wish that would be the case again. I don't see how that can be until his concerns are addressed. Jehochman Talk 00:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the blurry nature of these two cases might I suggest a way forward? This one should be restricted to its ostensible scope, manipulation of BLPs. Cirt/Jayen at least has a clearly defined scope; adding other matters will just bog down and blur that case too. I don't think anyone is in the mood for yet a third case. Deal with these matters (myself, Jehochman, Will Beback) through summary motions at Arbitration/Requests to resolve any outstanding issues. The central issues all seem to have been aired so there seems little point in drawing things out further. I'll make some suggestions to the ArbCom about possible outcomes in my own case. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)