And now we have an RFC, and what's more, an ArbCom case Options

[Abd]

Oh shit ... they banned you.

Well, it wasn't the ArbCom that banned me. It was Will Beback and JoshuaZ, who banned me on behalf of their 2-person Community.

People are responsible for what they allow. Hence you were banned by ArbComm and the Community. Shame on them, shame on us.

[-DS-]

I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

This would seem to confirm that theory.

[MaliceAforethought]

I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

This would seem to confirm that theory.

Ach, you would think so, but turns out AC just covered it up.
-----------
From: lutefisk73 at (Chris Owen)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:01:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Blocked yet again by Avraham!

Would you mind please telling Avraham to stop blocking me? You reversed his
previous block of my IP address and he has now blocked my replacement
account again. Did nobody tell him not to do so?

Chris
-----------
From: (Avi)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:21:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh, well done


Obviously no one has informed me. I am copying arbcom on this e-mail. Also,
note that there is nothing in the logs that indicate whom you are a
sockpuppet of.

However, if I am contacted as the CU who blocked your last sockpuppet, and
told that it is crystal clear as to who you are, then the "vanishing" was
not properly completed on your part and the edits should be re-attributed.

Either way, I have sent a detailed analysis to ArbCom, and if they choose to
correct me, so be it. My job is solely to implement their will, after all,
although it *would* be helpful if they informed us maintenance workers
*of*that will
*prior* to us being called upon to uphold what we believe is the current
status.

If you had permission, then you have my apologies, and I will know for the
future that ArbCom's position has changed. Again, if directed by arbcom, I
will be happy to lift the block with a note saying that I was in error, and
leave an apology on your talk page. However, if by virtue of your editing
being obvious enough to others that you have reappeared you are in violation
of any agreement you have with arbcom and the vanishing privilege, I suggest
you discuss with arbcom the possibility of starting anew with some better
guidelines so as not to create more wikidrama.

--Avi


----
User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key)
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E
29F9


On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Prioryman <lutefisk73> wrote:

> Avraham, did nobody on the Arbcom tell you that they have allowed me to
> resume editing from a new account? Congratulations - you have just blown
> that account and compomised my anonymity yet again. Contact Cool Hand Luke,
> Risker or Roger Davies if you don't believe me. And check my IP address -
> you will see that CHL undid your block of it. Rather than referring me to
> the Arbcom, WTF didn't you check with them *first* before blocking me again?
>
> - Chris

[carbuncle]

What!!! I am shocked!

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Fri 22nd July 2011, 11:58am

[Abd]

What!!! I am shocked!

I don't know how "shocked" to be, but this was an example of ArbComm making a deceptive statement in public. Sure, it was an error of a kind, but so? Avraham seems to have handled this reasonably. The block notice. He offered to unblock. Instead of allowing him to quietly undo the block, which had not disclosed identity, an arb undid it with (False positive: legitimate editor). "Legitimate editor" would have been enough, and it would have been better for Avraham to do that, that's all.

I must say that for years I imagined that ArbComm consisted of the most experienced, competent editors, seasoned with years of dealing with wiki conflicts, understanding how to defuse disputes and how to encourage people to cooperate.

I don't know where I got that idea from, possibly an occasional insightful comment from this or that arbitrator.

Wishful thinking.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

[carbuncle]

I suspect that the Prioryman account will be vanishing before this case gets heard, but I think it is worth quoting this statement:

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). The reason I'm commenting on this particular issue is because in your rush to judgement I see you making very obviously flawed claims. I'd like you to slow down and think more objectively about what you are saying, in particular taking more care to provide hard evidence of your claims. If you're going to accuse other editors of wrongdoing then the least you can do is to make a case based on factually accurate evidence rather than supposition and misrepresentations. Right now there seems to be a lynch mob mentality and I dislike that intensely. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

[Kelly Martin]

The primary difference on Wikipedia being that everyone is a bad guy with a folding chair and there are no referees.

No, there are referees. It's just that they're also armed with chairs.

[-DS-]

I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

This would seem to confirm that theory.

Ach, you would think so, but turns out AC just covered it up.

You know, I should be surprised at that, but somehow I'm not.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I suspect that the Prioryman account will be vanishing before this case gets heard, but I think it is worth quoting this statement:

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). The reason I'm commenting on this particular issue is because in your rush to judgement I see you making very obviously flawed claims. I'd like you to slow down and think more objectively about what you are saying, in particular taking more care to provide hard evidence of your claims. If you're going to accuse other editors of wrongdoing then the least you can do is to make a case based on factually accurate evidence rather than supposition and misrepresentations. Right now there seems to be a lynch mob mentality and I dislike that intensely. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Does he think Lindon Larouche is a Scientologist?

[Milton Roe]

I suspect that the Prioryman account will be vanishing before this case gets heard, but I think it is worth quoting this statement:

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). The reason I'm commenting on this particular issue is because in your rush to judgement I see you making very obviously flawed claims. I'd like you to slow down and think more objectively about what you are saying, in particular taking more care to provide hard evidence of your claims. If you're going to accuse other editors of wrongdoing then the least you can do is to make a case based on factually accurate evidence rather than supposition and misrepresentations. Right now there seems to be a lynch mob mentality and I dislike that intensely. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Does he think Lindon Larouche is a Scientologist?

No, just "one of all the rest" of those crazy guru guys with a cult following. Which he is.

[carbuncle]

Ahem.

And it's worth pointing out that Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is a complete
loon in the first place; fanatically anti-European. He's about as
credible on the subject of the EU as Lyndon LaRouche is on the UN.

--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |

[-DS-]

Clearly, someone is not happy about the coverup.

And, oh look, already Chase me tries to shoot the messenger.

[Jagärdu]

Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here.

Will is being aided in his pursuit of WR by User:Prioryman.

I alerted a checkuser that it might be worth looking into the possibility that Prioryman was connected to a certain vanished user who was under editing restrictions relating to Scientology (among others), they replied to my emdail with "Please send chriso issues to funcen/arbcom. I am not privy to any deals or agreements that may exist. Sorry". I followed their advice, but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action. I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman.

I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.

Addendum: I note that you sent your email on the 12th of July to the Arbs, but that Prioryman came back to edit the RfC talk page 4 days later on the 16th of July. From the look of it Prioryman was one of the earliest and most vocal well poisoners at the RfC. The Arbs clearly let him run amock at the RfC and I don't think anyone should have confidence in them to be neutral regarding this issue.

Addendum 2: Chase me are you reading this, because it sure seems like you are. Shortly after I added the addendum above I noticed this edit by Chase Me. Not particularly believable if you ask me. Since the Arbs are clearly following this I find it unlikely that no one saw Carbuncle's email of the 12th until today.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:39pm

[carbuncle]

I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.

Actually, they did, after the leak today of that ArbCom discussion. Just an acknowledgement that they had gotten it and were discussing the situation.

[Jagärdu]

I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.

Actually, they did, after the leak today of that ArbCom discussion. Just an acknowledgement that they had gotten it and were discussing the situation.

Chase me claims not to have known about your prior email until today.

Addendum: Chase me are you chasing me? Here you are again twisting already twisted half-truths into something you think sounds more sensical just after I questioned it in this thread. I like this game. Do you want to keep playing?

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:50pm

[HRIP7]

I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.

Actually, they did, after the leak today of that ArbCom discussion. Just an acknowledgement that they had gotten it and were discussing the situation.

Chase me claims not to have known about your prior email until today.

Addendum: Chase me are you chasing me? Here you are again twisting already twisted half-truths into something you think sounds more sensical just after I questioned it in this thread. I like this game. Do you want to keep playing?

FWIW, I wrote to Chris on July 16, welcoming him back to Wikipedia:

Chris,

It's good to see you back on Wikipedia, but it isn't helpful to deflect attention from the fact that not everything Cirt has done has been above board. I understand your loyalty to a fellow campaigner, but I am sure in your heart of hearts, you know that as well as I do.

We have to get Wikipedia right, including its coverage of topics like Scientology and other cults. Neutral coverage is all that is required. Cirt goes too far, and is too personally involved to write NPOV articles. I think that's chronic, and something he has no control over.

You know I respect your work, including that on Hubbard and Scientology. There is no need to acknowledge this mail, but please accept that my motives are not about Cirt the person, Wikipedia Review or indeed anything other than Wikipedia. The mistake I do acknowledge is that I stated strong conclusions before presenting the evidence; I should have focused on presenting the evidence, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Kind regards,
Andreas

He stopped commenting at the RfC 3 hours of so after I sent that mail. (He didn't reply, but that was quite alright.)

[Jagärdu]

I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.

Actually, they did, after the leak today of that ArbCom discussion. Just an acknowledgement that they had gotten it and were discussing the situation.

Chase me claims not to have known about your prior email until today.

Addendum: Chase me are you chasing me? Here you are again twisting already twisted half-truths into something you think sounds more sensical just after I questioned it in this thread. I like this game. Do you want to keep playing?

FWIW, I wrote to Chris on July 16, welcoming him back to Wikipedia:

Chris,

It's good to see you back on Wikipedia, but it isn't helpful to deflect attention from the fact that not everything Cirt has done has been above board. I understand your loyalty to a fellow campaigner, but I am sure in your heart of hearts, you know that as well as I do.

We have to get Wikipedia right, including its coverage of topics like Scientology and other cults. Neutral coverage is all that is required. Cirt goes too far, and is too personally involved to write NPOV articles. I think that's chronic, and something he has no control over.

You know I respect your work, including that on Hubbard and Scientology. There is no need to acknowledge this mail, but please accept that my motives are not about Cirt the person, Wikipedia Review or indeed anything other than Wikipedia. The mistake I do acknowledge is that I stated strong conclusions before presenting the evidence; I should have focused on presenting the evidence, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Kind regards,
Andreas

He stopped commenting at the RfC 3 hours of so after I sent that mail. (He didn't reply, but that was quite alright.)

Interesting. I saw you mention on the Arbcom case page that someone had alerted you to possible rumors going around that you were a Scientologist. I wonder if there is any connection between that and your sending of this email.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:08pm

[Jagärdu]

On July 5th Chris asks ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the Arb request list (which RA did).

Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What a slimey arseface. He shows up to protect an old POV pushing friend by well poisoning his RfC and then he manages to get removed from the Arbitration Request because of all people he is "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults ..." Do people on Wikipedia just have their heads up their arses at all times or what?

[Cla68]

On July 5th Chris asks ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the Arb request list (which RA did).

Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What a slimey arseface. He shows up to protect an old POV pushing friend by well poisoning his RfC and then he manages to get removed from the Arbitration Request because of all people he is "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults ..." Do people on Wikipedia just have their heads up their arses at all times or what?

Here are the emails related to this. What's suprising is that Rlevse appears to be the only arb outraged by the inconsistent and unfair treatment afforded ChrisO and how insulting this is to the WP community, who, at least in my case, expect the standards to sometime, someday be applied consistently to every editor. The mush-mouthing around about it by some of the arbitrators is embarrassing to read.

I don't see any attempt by the arbitrators in any of the emails to set a baseline standard so that newbie and vested contributors might be treated equally and consistently. All I see is a chaotic group of email acquaintances making decisions off the cuff on every single issue brought before them. There's no attempt at organizing, standardizing, or structuring their deliberative communication and decision-making. What a mess. Good grief, Jimbo, no wonder the administration of your website is such a debacle.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sun 24th July 2011, 8:52am

[HRIP7]

On July 5th Chris asks ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the Arb request list (which RA did).

Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What a slimey arseface. He shows up to protect an old POV pushing friend by well poisoning his RfC and then he manages to get removed from the Arbitration Request because of all people he is "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults ..." Do people on Wikipedia just have their heads up their arses at all times or what?

Here are the emails related to this. What's suprising is that Rlevse appears to be the only arb outraged by the inconsistent and unfair treatment afforded ChrisO and how insulting this is to the WP community, who, at least in my case, expect the standards to sometime, someday be applied consistently to every editor. The mush-mouthing around about it by some of the arbitrators is embarrassing to read.

I don't see any attempt by the arbitrators in any of the emails to set a baseline standard so that newbie and vested contributors might be treated equally and consistently. All I see is a chaotic group of email acquaintances making decisions off the cuff on every single issue brought before them. There's no attempt at organizing, standardizing, or structuring their deliberative communication and decision-making. What a mess. Good grief, Jimbo, no wonder the administration of your website is such a debacle.

It seems the committee have decided to introduce a special evidence length restriction for the Cirt case.

I've just been advised that my evidence is too long, at "894 words and 26 diffs". The bot notification links to the arbitration guide, which states that evidence should be "kept under 1000 words and 100 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated".