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

Case clerks: Hersfold (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: David Fuchs (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

Case Opened on 05:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Case Amended by motion on 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 01:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Arbitration Committee by motion
Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jayen466 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Requests for comment

Statement regarding scope

The purpose of this case is to examine the conduct of each party - including but not limited to editing articles about new religious movements (broadly construed) and BLPs - as well as any interpersonal conduct issues arising between the two parties. Submitted evidence should focus solely on the conduct of Cirt and Jayen466. Evidence in relation to broader issues or other editors should be submitted to the "Manipulation of BLPs" case, to be opened at a later date.

Preliminary decisions

Motion to open the case

The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will:

a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine ~~personal~~ the conduct of each party and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties;

b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles;

c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein.

Support:

Let's get this moving ... Roger Davies ^talk 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the scope slightly to make it clearer, using strikethrough and underscore. Please revert if you want this as a separate motion. Roger Davies ^talk 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Righto. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 21:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may end up recusing from the first case, but I think this is the right way to carve them up. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cavalry (Message me) 22:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dubitante support. I am frankly uncertain whether the best move here is to accept this request as one or more cases, or to decline the request as filed with a motion providing guidance going forward and authorizing a more narrowly scoped request in a couple of weeks if problems continue despite that guidance. However, given the majority's view that much of the request for arbitration should be accepted, this appears to be a reasonable procedural path forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that large cases tend to drag on too long, so splitting them makes sense. In this instance, there doesn't appear to be a neater way of splitting the cases, so I'll go along with this. At the moment, my thoughts are that I wouldn't have to recuse from the first case, but would have to recuse from the second. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

–xeno^talk 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding a publicly readable mailing list

Moved here

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Collegiality

1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Passed 11 to 0, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and undue weight

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias and prejudice

3.1) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as insinuating, endorsing or promoting bias and prejudice either against or for the members, beliefs or tenets of the group.

Passed 6 to 4, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

4) It is a core policy of the encyclopedia that Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with a high regard for accuracy and neutrality, using only high quality sources. BLP articles may never be used as a vehicle for aggrandising or diminishing the subject.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair criticism and personal attacks

5) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Cirt's editing

1) According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466's conduct

2) 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)

Passed 8 to 3, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Cirt topic-banned from new religious movement ("NRM") articles

1) Cirt is prohibited from making any edit of whatever nature to articles relating to new religious movements or their adherents, broadly construed, or to any associated biographies of living people.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirt restricted from political, religious and social controversy biographies

2.3) Cirt is prohibited from editing articles that are substantially biographies of living people if, broadly but reasonably construed, (i) the articles already refer to politics or religion or social controversy; or (ii) his edits introduce to the articles material about politics or religion or social controversy. However, Cirt is permitted to edit other articles that refer incidentally to such living people providing (i) the focus of the articles is not substantially biographical and (ii) his edits are not biographical in nature.

Should Cirt's continued editing raise further concerns about his compliance with the BLP policy, the Committee may expand the scope of this restriction by motion to include all editing relating to living persons. Conversely, if Cirt conforms his future editing to applicable policies and the principles set forth in this decision and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, he may submit a request for amendment after one year from the date of this decision seeking a relaxation of this restriction.

Passed 11 to 0, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirt desysopped

3) For admitted violations of the neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies, in addition to any other sanction or remedy, Cirt is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.

Passed 6 to 5, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466 reminded

4) Jayen466 is reminded to adhere strictly to dispute resolution processes in any future dispute with any other editor.

Passed 8 to 3, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirt and Jayen: interaction restriction

5) Cirt and Jayen466 shall neither communicate with each other nor comment upon each other's actions or edits either directly or indirectly on any page in the English Wikipedia. Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. Neither party may respond directly to perceived violations of this interaction restriction nor seek arbitration enforcement but shall instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Passed 10 to 1, 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments by motion

Modified by motion

1) Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at anytime, or by further motion of this Committee.

Passed 8 to 0, 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

October 2015

1) Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) may edit the article Typewriter in the Sky, its talk page, and pages related to a peer review, good article or featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be revoked by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Cirt fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards while editing under the exemption. Appeal of such a revocation would be through the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstension by motion at 01:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.