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

[-DS-]

Requests for comment/Cirt

Who wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

[carbuncle]

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 email 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.

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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: