Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 895: Line 895:
:# &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:# &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:# This is acceptable, but it would be easier just to add "... and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case" to the definition of "uninvolved" in remedy 2. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


:Oppose
:Oppose

Revision as of 23:47, 1 May 2009

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 14 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused and 1 who is inactive), so 8 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FWIW, the nuances of WP:OR as applied in this case are sufficiently complex that if I were drafting on a clean slate, I might break that aspect out separately with a bit more explanation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With regard to the last sentence, this is not meant to discourage good-faith discussion as to application of the pillars/key policies in particular factual situations or in response to new challenges. (For example, I am sick of simplistic contentions that removing borderline defamatory material from BLPs is unacceptably POV, including one instance when someone threatened to ask the Board to shut down En-Wiki if we strengthened the BLP policy.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Quality of sources

3) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concerns on the talk page, but this looks like a fairly straightforward summary from WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, primary sources have their place but it is limited. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dueling polarized sources show up far too often in articles. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Note that presenting a variety of polarized sources should be avoided when there is a better, more neutral alternative. On the other hand, sometimes the polarized sources are all that is out there, and in that case an editor's attempting on his or her own to synthesize a consensus view could accept constitute "original research". Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Since polarized sources exaggerate information, articles that rely on them to present two pov could end up with exaggerated information from each side rather than a NPOV article. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutrality is rarely the average of extremes. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Last sentence seems unnecessary, but I agree with principle. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To CHL's point, I believe the second sentence is drawn from a recent case that involved a somewhat different factual setting from this one, which is why it is slightly off point. Proposed copyedit: "Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That captures this case precisely. If Roger agrees, we should change it before too many others vote. Cool Hand Luke 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me. — Roger Davies talk 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: I have made the copyedit described above, now that all prior voters have concurred with it. Support the essence of the copyedited principle. Risker (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Avoiding apparent impropriety

6) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is adapted (with some minor changes) from the decision I drafted in the C68-FM-SV case. To CHL, see the discussion at the workshop in that case for several users' thoughts on this principle and its wording. The basic idea is that if User:A and User:B reinforce each others' edits so often that several people independent begin to suspect that A and B are either the same user or otherwise doing something wrong, A and B will often be well-advised to adjust their behavior, thereby avoiding the need for a laborious examination of their editing and associated drama or rancor. I'd welcome further thoughts on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. To take Cool Hand Luke's point, we know some editors who have clear opinions about the application of policy to a long-running dispute will monitor the contributions of others involved in the same dispute to alert them to places where the dispute has cropped up. It is better in such circumstances if they do not automatically and immediately rush in to give their own opinion, even if they are acting in real (rather than assumed) good faith. If there is a particular reason to intervene, or they have a point which is not being made by other people, then no issue can arise. This principle is stated in relatively modest terms of "strive to avoid" rather than an absolute instruction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm not sure what "repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors" means, or how it can be avoided by editors. Editors shouldn't agree too much with each other? They should avoid posting on too many of the same talk pages, or fight just to demonstrate they sometimes disagree? Leaning toward oppose. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Recidivism

7) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrator conduct

8) Administrators are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. If an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 05:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Return of access levels

9) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule.

Support:
  1. Reiteration of current practice, drawn from the Philwelch case with minor wordsmithing. Needed to explain the proposals relating to Jossi below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Single purpose accounts

10) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that the only reason they are editing is to advance their point of view.

Support
  1. — Roger Davies talk 14:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded, from "following their own agenda", onwards.  Roger Davies talk 05:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Every editor is expected to contribute neutrally, but there is a particular burden on single purpose accounts to avoid any suggestion that the only reason they are here is to advance their point of view. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think single-purpose accounts have the bar set even higher than this. Every other editor is likely to be justifiably suspicious of any editor that edits only one set of closely related articles; history has shown that few, if any, editors that so constrain their editing are likely to be neutral. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Everyone ought to edit neutrally. I think this finding is trying to say something about SPAs being an especially prone to becoming in appearance (if not fact) POV pushers. It should say something along the lines of "Non-neutral editing, along with a focus on one topic strongly suggests that a user's editing privileges are not compatible with the goals of this project." Maybe some other formulation, but I think this finding says too little. Cool Hand Luke 19:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Substantially per Cool Hand Luke, but I could support a slightly revised version per Sam Blacketer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded the principle to take various comments into account.  Roger Davies talk

Multiple editors with a single voice

11) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 05:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Old idea that never goes out of fashion due the necessity to prevent articles from being controlled by a block of people who know each other primarily outside of Wikipedia and put their common interest ahead of Wikipedia policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Emphatically so. — Coren (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of accounts

12) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I always thought that "meatpuppets," insofar that they're objectionable, are a type of WP:CANVASSing, not sockpuppeteering. I think the remedies should therefore be different, but I do agree that it's a violation of policy in any case. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I've recently addressed some concerns about "meatpuppetry" (the term and the concept) on the proposed decision page in the Ayn Rand case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Very much so. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Responsibility of organizations

13) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Support:
  1. From COFS case. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is to be noted that the presumption does not limit itself to the organizations' IP addresses, but to all editing reasonably believed to be on their behalf. Editing from the organizations themselves is simply the most evident of those cases. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Possibly overstated, and I am concerned it may be overused to criticize editing about some institutions (e.g., universities) by the most knowledgeable possible editors about them (their students and faculty editing on the school's network). However, I agree that such editors must be mindful of the possibility of conflict of interest and should take especial pains to edit neutrally in the areas of potential conflict. The COI principle used in cases such as International Council of Churches, which appropriate modifications, might be suitable here. (The issue raised by the last sentence is a separate one, on which I'll comment at the remedies stage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people

14) Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all our content policies, especially: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 05:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Poorly sourced material does not belong in Wikipedia. If the material concerns a living person, it needs to be removed promptly. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This applies generally, but is especially critical in BLPs. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

External links in biographies of living people

15) The decision to include an external link in a biography of a living person must be motivated by the objective of preventing potential harm to the subject. While external links to an article can be helpful to the reader, they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. In particular, external links may not be used to introduce material which, if included within the body of the article, would fail to satisfy Wikipedia's policies of neutrality or verifiability.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 05:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With the emphasis being on the last statement as overriding other concerns. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Coren. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. While certain links in BLPs can be very seriously problematic, I don't agree that the number of external links should always be "kept minimal." That is a content issue, and at least for certain very public persons, there may be a wide variety of appropriate links. Additionally, wording such as "must bear in mind" would fit better here than "must be motivated by". Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Biographies of living people and real usernames

16) While the use of a real name as a username may enable contributions to be more easily traced to an individual, it may also be open to abuse, through impersonation. This is particularly so when the editor is contributing within a topic where article content exists for a living person of the same name. In these circumstances, the editor's user page should make it clear whether or not he or she is the same individual who is the subject of the article, and the editor may be asked to prove off-wiki that he or she is actually that individual.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 05:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the record, I'm not really Florence Nightingale. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Including usernames that are obvious variations on the real name. — Coren (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 21:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Copyedited last sentence; proposer and other arbs, please check to make sure that I haven't introduced a substantive change, as none is intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Clean-up tags

17) In appropriate instances, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article.

Support:
  1. (Suggest moving to P. 6.) Modified from prior case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Good-faith participation welcome

18) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Support:
  1. (Suggest moving up to in front of Administrator conduct principle.) Modified from prior case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Made very minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute or series of disputes is focused on Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and approximately 430 related articles, mostly within the Scientology portal, and has spilled over into various associated article-related processes (for example: the BLP noticeboard, the reliable sources noticeboard, articles for deletion, and others).

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some small copyedits made; added "or series of disputes" and substituted words for the pagename acronyms. Any arbitrator disagreeing, please feel free to revert; my support will still stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The large number of articles involved and the frequency with which they become involved in disputes both tend to make this case particularly difficult. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The large number of articles involved is the reason that the Committee needs to assist in finding a solution to help improve the quality of the articles and make them more stable. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Background

2) The dispute is longstanding: this is the fourth Scientology-related arbitration case in four years. Prior cases are: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (2005), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo (2006) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS (2007). More recently, the dispute has become lower-key but is ongoing and corrosive, involving persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources on multiple articles. The corrosive atmosphere has resulted in normally neutral editors adopting polarized positions in countless minor sub-feuds (cf. Evidence presented by Durova). The topic has become a magnet for single purpose accounts, and sockpuppetry is rife (examples: [1], [2]).

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Made minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Church of Scientology

3) Editors using Church of Scientology equipment are focused on Scientology-related articles, [3] and frequently engage in sockpuppetry to avoid sanctions [4], [5]. The Church of Scientology's influence on articles relating to it on Wikipedia has been widely reported internationally by the media since 2005, damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality (examples: The Guardian, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Der Spiegel, The Independent, Forbes and Reuters).

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 14:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regardless of any subjective assessment of the contributions' quality, any edit coming from the organization being discussed in the articles are in conflict of interest. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Troubled by the one-sidedness of this finding. I think their joint work has actually improved articles over the last two years. Some individuals need to be dealt with in this case, but I oppose blanket sanctions on anyone using a COFS IP address. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Refactored by Durova's request. Cool Hand Luke 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer 3.1. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per NYB. Wizardman 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 3.1 and 3.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ditto Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustained POV editing

3.1) Over a lengthy time period, Scientology-related articles have been subject to biased or aggressive editing that has failed to comply with the fundamental policy of NPOV. This has involved both some editors who appear to be supporters of Scientology, often editing from the Church of Scientology's own facilities and IP address, as well as some opponents of Scientology.

Support:
  1. Proposed as alternate, together with 3.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. This is a case about troubling editor conduct. Cool Hand Luke 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors using Church of Scientology equipment are focused on Scientology-related articles, [6] and frequently engage in sockpuppetry to avoid sanctions [7], [8]. These diffs are relevant. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

BLP violations

3.2) Editing of several articles concerning individuals associated with Scientology and/or with opposition to Scientology has violated aspects of our policy governing biographies of living persons.

Support:
  1. Proposed as alternate, together with 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Diffs might be handy (there are plenty to choose from) but might also compound the BLP problem. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Abstain for now. There has been clear NPOV volation but although there has been much commotion about it in the workshop the purported BLP violations are not clear cut. — Roger Davies talk 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would like a few diffs to go with this FOF. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing environment

12) The editing environment surrounding the Scientology topic area is hostile. Newcomers are treated rudely. Bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, edit wars, soapboxing, and other disruptions are common occurrences. [9], [10], [11], [12]. [13]. [14], [15], [16].


Support:
  1. Modified from another case. I'll add more diffs and related Fof in the morning. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

13) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

15) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Jossi's administrator status

1) Because Jossi gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.

Support:
  1. Accord Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Philwelch's administrator status. Cool Hand Luke 06:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sometimes accused of being too legalistic on the arbitration pages; I don't even want to think about what would have been said if I'd preceded a citation in a decision with the signal "accord". Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Expanded the wiki-abbreviation). Risker (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note:Vote struck at arbitrator's request --Tznkai (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that it is worthwhile to spell this out in the decision, but note that this result would have followed automatically even if we didn't vote this, unless we voted the opposite. See proposed principle 9 above. (The main purpose of the last sentence of the principle is to avoid a situation where the committee feels that it has to take up a case that might otherwise have become moot in light of a resignation, as occurred in the Konstable case and arguably in Philwelch as well. Here, the case had already been accepted and continued to deal with other issues in any event.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think it's only worth finding here to resolve any ambiguity; it was apparently unclear whether we would apply the rule in this case. Cool Hand Luke 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked

2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.

Support:
  1. I think this is supported by Cirt's new evidence.[17] Would clarify that they can be blocked as if they were open proxies, although they clearly are not (perhaps these addresses are internal proxies or perhaps serial sock puppets are at work here). As with open proxy blocks, established editors can apply for an IP block exemption, which may be granted or revoked with cause. This will control any socks coming in, instead of the status quo (which appears to be at-will checkuser for pro-Scientologists). In the future, we may presume that pro-Scientologists without an IP block exemption are not editing from a COS IP. Cool Hand Luke 01:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've added a second sentence to include a reference to WP:IPBE.  Roger Davies talk 05:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As long as we'll give exemptions so users can contribute. My only concern is that ip addresses for an organization can change for a variety of reasons so we need to understand that an ip address could later belong to someone else. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the COFS case Proposed decision, the Committee ruled on the situation. See Church of Scientology-owned IPs. After the previous case ruling, particularly this aspect of the decision, the Committee can go farther this time in order to achieve NPOV and stable articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This sweeps too broadly; for one thing, it bars any editing from a COS facility even on articles having nothing to do with Scientology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The checkuser evidence thus far is that editors from CofS IP addresses don't stray far from editing Scientology.  Roger Davies talk 05:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC


Abstain:

Scope of Scientology topic ban

3) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. And makes it clear that those not topic banned can continue to participate in these discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discretionary topic ban

4) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of discretionary topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Support:
  1. (With slight copy edit)  Roger Davies talk 10:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is more-or-less the current equivalent of what used to be called "article probation" as applied to the Scientology topic area. Given the extremely lengthy history of contentiousness on this topic, the remedy appears to be warranted here. I would support some copy-editing, however, to outline the types of editing misconduct that could warrant a topic ban, and also to provide that an administrator may impose a lesser sanction (e.g. a revert limitation, or a ban from a particular page rather than the whole general topic), as has been done in other recent cases. (Note that although I am the first support vote here, I am not the proposer.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm not fond of discretionary remedies because of the potential that it be used to attack the enforcing administrators, but this is required. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Coren. Wizardman 22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Single purpose accounts

5) If, in the judgement of any uninvolved administrator, an editor is focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists, then the editor may be topic banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of single purpose account topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Support:
  1. (Slightly copy-edited to remove duplication)  Roger Davies talk 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am probably less traditional than my colleagues, but I don't think any single-purpose account is helpful in general, and that they are all harmful in a disputed area. The propriety of individual edits is too much a matter of subjective evaluation to be a good criterion between "good" and "bad" SPAs, and we have enough editors — and enough articles to edit — that I don't think requesting that nobody focuses entirely on a "battlefield" like this is too onerous. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The proposal calls for topic-bans of accounts focused on Scientology-related topics without reference to whether they edit appropriately or inappropriately. There is no reason even to consider authorizing sanctions against editors who do not misbehave or violate policy. Sanctions against editors who do edit inappropriately in this topic area would be sufficiently authorized by the preceding remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Account limitation

6) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to using one and only one current or future account to edit. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely. (Principle: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2.)

Support:
  1. (With slight copy edit)  Roger Davies talk 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have no love for "legitimate" sock puppets— I'm certainly not going to condone their use by sanctioned editors. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I could support a variation on this proposal if it limited these editors to a single account for editing on Scientology-related topics, but I see no reason to vary the application of our existing policy for alternate accounts insofar as their other editing areas are concerned. Additionally, this remedy could be draconian (and burdensome for the committee) if applied to an editor who got himself or herself topic-banned for a day or a week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I support the idea and agree that we need to spell it out on this case. I need to think through Newyorkbrads's comment because I think I might support the idea that topic banned users should be be told upfront that they should not edit with any alternative accounts on Scientology-related topics even if it puts a burden on us and admins to do the extra work to explain the issue and do whatever needs to happen to accomplish it. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour and consequences

7) All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks, or else topic banned, until the situation improves.

Support:
  1. I'm not worried about the wording of a figure of speech, and while slightly hyperbolic this reminder is sorely needed. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This proposal's heart is in the right place, but as a clerk I felt awkward when I had to publish the original "hit on the head with sticks remedy" in 2007, so I won't do that to one of my successors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Replaces
4) Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and to foster a productive editing environment.
Support:
Oppose:
  1. Oh, so this is where those weird "exoneration" findings come from, eh? I didn't participate in the Ayn Rand case, so I would like to voice my objection to this remedy here. I don't think we should be in the business of exonerations. The community always retains the right to issue sanctions. If this proposal is trying to say that others may be brought in for Arbitration enforcement, as Coren said here, I would greatly prefer if we simply say that. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors instructed

8) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;
(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;
(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the topic ban specified in Remedy 3 to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Support:
  1. Tentative support (note that I am not the proposer, however; I am not sure why the arbitrator proposing these remedies has not voted yet). This structure (borrowed, of course, from the Mantanmoreland decision) could make a useful contribution toward solving the difficulties on these articles. There may be some nuances involved in tailoring the remedy toward this specific decision, but these can be addressed after we see whether there is a consensus in favor of this remedy structure. I would also want to see some evidence as to whether problematic editing on the Scientology articles is continuing, as the evidence currently before us is growing stale while the case continues to age. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I recognize it, too, and like it. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'll support that with the mention that I would be unwilling to authorize any alternate account unless some compelling reasons can be offered. For the record, I can thing of no reason so compelling. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Review of articles urged

9) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Indeed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm no fan of such community-wide exhortations, given their historical lack of success. It has value, but as a statement of "this needs help" from the committee. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

14) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

15) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Template

16) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

17) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to a month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the wording of the discretionary sanctions remedy is tweaked per my suggestion above, then the words "or other sanction" should be added after the first occurrence of "topic ban". Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Named administrators

3) In the interests of avoiding apparent impropriety and allegations of involvement, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to refrain from enforcing discretionary sanctions under the provisions of this case.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. this would be a prerequisite for any admin thinking of using admin powers in an area s/he was involved in anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This amounts to a statement of fact stating that "Cirt is involved", so I'm not sure why that's en enforcement provision. But I agree regardless of where it sits. — Coren (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Already implicit in the definition of "uninvolved" (whether the specific definition offered above, or any other reasonable definition), and I am sure that Cirt realizes that, so I am not sure that this needs to be included in the published decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mixed feeling about whether it is overkill or helpful to spell it out so that everyone can relax more because the matter is clearly stated. If this relieves the tension on articles in the topic for Cirt, then it would be goodness. But if users beat him up over it, more than they would otherwise, then it will be an extra burden. I'll think about more before I vote one way or the other. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with new proposal.  Roger Davies talk 10:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator named in a Finding of Fact in this proceeding may impose or enforce any sanction under it.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is acceptable, but it would be easier just to add "... and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case" to the definition of "uninvolved" in remedy 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision&oldid=287351271"