Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Involved parties: added people of interest mentioned or connected to the proceedings
Line 23: Line 23:
*{{userlinks|Bravehartbear}}
*{{userlinks|Bravehartbear}}
*{{userlinks|Shrampes}}
*{{userlinks|Shrampes}}
;Added 6 April 2009
* {{userlinks|AndroidCat}}
* {{userlinks|Antaeus Feldspar}}
* {{userlinks|Anynobody}}
* {{admin|ChrisO}}
* {{userlinks|CSI LA}}
* {{userlinks|Crotalus horridus}}
* {{admin|David Gerard}}
* {{userlinks|Derflipper}}
* {{userlinks|Fahrenheit451}}
* {{userlinks|Fubar Obfusco}}
* {{admin|Glen}}
* {{userlinks|Grrrilla}}
* {{userlinks|Jpierreg}}
* {{userlinks|Karin Spaink}}
* {{userlinks|Lsi john}}
* {{userlinks|Makoshack}}
* {{userlinks|Martin Ottmann}}
* {{userlinks|MartinPoulter}}
* {{admin|Modemac}}
* {{userlinks|OngoingHow}}
* {{userlinks|Orsini}}
* {{admin|Phil Sandifer}}
* {{userlinks|Proximodiz}}
* {{userlinks|Rick Alan Ross}}
* {{userlinks|Seelltey}}
* {{userlinks|Steve Dufour}}
* {{userlinks|Su-Jada}}
* {{userlinks|TaborG}}
* {{userlinks|The Legendary Shadow!}}
* {{userlinks|Tilman}}
* {{userlinks|Tory Christman}}
* {{userlinks|Touretzky}}
* {{userlinks|Tturrisi}}


== Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]] ==
== Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]] ==

Revision as of 10:02, 6 April 2009

Case Opened on 04:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Involved parties

Added 6 April 2009

Statement by Durova

Requesting a follow-on to the COFS arbitration case. After more than a year of relative stability and progress at Scientology topics, recent developments have overwhelmed site processes. On November 26 a thread opened at AE that raised serious concerns about conflict of interest and possible role accounts. Since then several other related concerns have opened at other fora, most of which remain unresolved: a suspected sockpuppet report (unresolved),[1] two checkuser requests (both unfulfilled),[2][3] and a malware linking issue (resolved; Meta has blacklisted the domain). On 6 December a separate thread opened at AE with the first one still open, with the new thread mostly regarding actions by Cirt, and subthreads there have proliferated for two days. Recently Justallofthem announced an intention to introduce concerns about Cirt's use of the admin tools.

So requesting a new case for four reasons:

  1. This expanding dispute is outpacing the community's capacity for response.
  2. Uninvolved admins are unlikely to intervene in multiple large AE threads where many issues are on the table at the same time.
  3. Several of the editors have changed usernames since the previous arbitration case, which makes it harder for uninvolved admins to understand the situation.
  4. Arbitration enforcement is not equipped to respond to misuse of admin tools, if any occurred.

As Cirt's mentor for over a year, I am well aware of his previous history of edit warring. When I conominated him for adminship it was in the belief that he had put that far behind him. Yet recent events are concerning. The scope of concerns here is too broad for a clarification request and deserves thorough attention. Requesting the Committee scrutinize the conduct of all parties. DurovaCharge! 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to FloNight): What's happened in the last two weeks resembles the dynamic that occurred prior to the original COFS case: a topic ban was proposed, then multiple editors with prior involvement lined up in predictable ways, and multiple side issues got raised faster than anyone could solve them. The effect has been to stymie meaningful progress. The few admins who have shown an interest (Jehochman, Jossi) have histories that make them unsuitable to take action. The situation is like a clogged sink that's filling faster than it can drain with no actual plumber in sight.
Some of the issues here are weighty and the rest are too increasing too swiftly. I asked both sides to slow down and table the low priority issues until the preexisting ones got resolved. Unfortunately, not all the disputants accept that advice. Justa accused me of trying to sweep matters under the rug, then announced his intention to expand the second AE thread with admin conduct issues. I certainly don't intend to sweep anything under the rug or shield anybody from legitimate scrutiny, yet AE is not equipped to handle admin conduct issues. In two weeks AE has proven inadequate to the numerous Scientology-related issues already before it. There have, I think, been other post-arbitration attempts at formal dispute resolution (I'll leave the Wikipedians who edit these areas to introduce that). I wish things hadn't come to this, but RFAR really seems like the right call under the present circumstances. DurovaCharge! 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDamon

I strongly suspected something like this would eventually happen, and feel some culpability in the matter as the one who initiated the incident report that became the first of the recent WP:AE reports. Nevertheless, I stand by that report.

My concerns are simple. I have edited in many areas of Wikipedia, and in particular recently found myself on the receiving end of long-term abusive sockpuppetry in an unrelated family of articles about political groups. As an editor, I should not be expected to work with or tolerate abusive sockpuppetry -- much less WP:ROLE accounts. When several long-quiescent accounts started editing in the Scientology series again, I was made aware of something that I hadn't known previously: That several of the accounts, notably Misou and Shutterbug, were confirmed socks editing from a Church of Scientology-owned IP address. This appears, at least to me, to be an open-and-shut case of sockpuppetry and/or role accounts. As the accounts in question are already well-established as single-purpose ones, I do not understand why they/she/he were permitted to continue.

In the original ArbCom, one of the principles agreed upon was "Multiple editors with a single voice", establishing that it is difficult to determine strict sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in cases where shared IP addresses are claimed, and thus remedies are to be behavior-based for such cases. But when the IP addresses in question belong to the organization that the Wikipedia article is about, it ceases to be merely sock/meatpuppetry, and starts leaning into WP:ROLE territory: Accounts created on behalf of the organization in question that exist for the sole purpose of pushing that organization's positive perspective.

Again, this is simple: I and other editors who find themselves interested in Scientology enough to contribute to this body of articles should not have to "compete" with a person or people working directly for the Church of Scientology. I am neutral on Scientology itself, but I have a very strong POV regarding this. --GoodDamon 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To FloNight

For my part, I was hoping the community would handle this, but I only have one complaint and I'm not sure why it requires such a complex environment as this one to handle. My points are simple:

  1. Shutterbug, Misou, and several other accounts were confirmed socks.
  2. They claimed a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands."
  3. This argument fell apart recently on closer inspection, as the proxy they were claiming has edited nearly exclusively in Scientology topics.
  4. The IP address in question belonged to the Church of Scientology.
  5. For the reasons above, the accounts should be treated as sock/meat puppets and likely WP:ROLE accounts.

The evidence is very clear cut and Wikipedia policies are Wikipedia policies. I don't know why what should be a very, very simple event -- topic-banning interest-conflicted role accounts -- requires so much effort. There has been a lot of noise generated about other editors, but those have been content disputes. I see no reason not to cut through that noise and deal with the sock accounts, and one very good reason to do so: As long as editing is being done by accounts associated directly with the Church of Scientology, it is very difficult for other editors -- Scientologist and non-Scientologist alike -- to edit in the same area. And we shouldn't be expected to. --GoodDamon 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Justanother

Call it what you will. Reopening, calling for enforcement, whatever. Perhaps you are partially correct; the old ArbCom happened before I stumbled upon the Scientology articles in the first place, and there are no doubt all sorts of aspects to it I'm unaware of; it was huge and cumbersome, while the issue I perceive is clear-cut and simple. Perhaps there are good reasons why "many editors, one voice" was agreed upon, although they do not appear to have edited from a position of humility and acceptance of the notion that they are to be treated as a single account. --GoodDamon 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Shrampes

After reviewing User:Spidern's edits, I can see why you might initially mistake him/her as a single-purpose account, but even from the start, that account has edited in other areas, and has more recently been editing in more and more diverse fields. Don't mistake the user's initial area of interest as indicative of anything. Someone reviewing my edits at the beginning of my time in Wikipedia might mistake me as a single-purpose account as well. --GoodDamon 02:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a single-purpose account. Some people have just one area of interest, and as long as they don't possess an inherent conflict in that area, being a single-purpose account is fine. It's when there are SPA and COI issues combined that things become problematic, and for the record the only SPAs involved in this discussion that I am aware of are Shutterbug, Misou, and Bravehartbear. Justallofthem is borderline, but I wouldn't call him/her a single-purpose account. And I'm not familiar enough with the editing habits of the other parties to know one way or another. --GoodDamon 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shrames

You're missing something very important: The fact that Spidern is a relatively new editor is one of the things you need to take into account. Of course the majority of the edits he has done so far have been associated with Scientology; these are very active and involved pages, and demand significant attention from editors who are interested in Scientology. But you have to note that not only has Spidern edited in several other areas, he has also created several new pages. These are not the behaviors of a single-purpose account. Saying that the majority of his edits are in Scientology, and therefore he is a single-purpose account, is inaccurate. For comparison's sake, this is Shutterbug's edits. See the difference? Long-term involvement, with a singular focus. Now here are my edits. Once again, you can see that Scientology takes up some time, but if that looks like the editing history of a single-purpose account to you, I'm not sure what else there is to say. If anything, it's the editing history of someone who apparently likes to argue, but beyond that, I challenge you to find a pattern to my interests. I'm a pretty varied guy. --GoodDamon 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Shutterbug's argument

I just want to point out that Shutterbug's argument is essentially an attempt to invalidate the entire WP:SOCK policy. Now that, as Spidern points out below, there is another Church-owned IP address, this is starting to veer into WP:DUCK territory. --GoodDamon 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Jayen466

I have a simple analogy for you. Let's say a group of accounts started editing in the article about Macintosh computers. They removed negative material about the computer system's market share, saying with basically one voice that the information was wrong, or taken out of context, or otherwise inappropriate for the article. Other editors at the article finally got sick of this behavior, and filed reports on these users. Checkuser results confirmed they were sharing several IP addresses, and the addresses were registered to Apple Inc., presenting what appeared to be an irreconcilable conflict-of-interest for the pro-Apple editors. "Yes," they replied, "we use Apple computers and sometimes edit from Apple's Cupertino campus, but we're not doing this for Apple, we're just a bunch of individual editors on an Apple-owned proxy who all happen to share the same belief that anything negative about Macintosh computers does not belong in the article. We can't provide any evidence that this is true, but you can't prove it is false, so don't topic-ban us." How much credence would you grant them? --GoodDamon 02:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

I do not know why Durova has named me as a party... I made a couple of comments at WP:AE, but that's all. I kindly ask the clerk to remove me as a party, as I am not. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justallofthem

This action was not at my request. Please note that all I asked of WP:AE was that "Cirt should minimally be strongly cautioned about maintaining WP:NPOV in the Scientology articles." I still strongly believe that.

However, seeing as we are here now: I have a very unique perspective on Cirt that is likely shared by very few. Cirt began editing here three or four usernames back, in 2006, a few months before I began, also a few name changes back for me. He originally edited in an NRM-related area and was quickly party to an arbitration related to his editing behavior which was closed with editing recommendations for all parties involved but no sanctions. In October 2006, Cirt moved over to Scientology articles, where I encountered him early on. Although our first few exchanges were cordial, I soon found him to be an aggressive POV-warrior with little care for the quality of his sources. Repeated experience with him right on up to the present has not much changed my mind about him. Cirt is a man with a mission. He is, and has always been, incredibly prolific and that prolificacy is, and always has been, exercised in the direction of forwarding a POV. I find it disturbing that admin Cirt is still "apologizing" for the exact same sort of "mistakes" that he "apologized" for in that first arbitration over two years and what, 60,000 edits? ago. I don't buy it. If the arbitration panel is interested in looking into the FULL history of ALL involved editors, then I am all for that. That history matters, especially in Cirt's case.

To FloNight

I agree that both of the issues raised at arbitration enforcement are well within the purview of that forum and of the remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision. There are two distinct issues. The first, brought by GoodDamon, relates to whether there is activity on the part of Shutterbug that violates the terms of the decision. I presented my opinion that there is none but am otherwise not involved in that issue. The other issue is the one I brought that asserts that Cirt has demonstrated repeatedly that his edits and interpretation of policy are skewed in the direction of his anti-Scientology POV to an unacceptable degree. Both of these can be addressed as enforcement of the existing conditions on Shutterbug and on the Scientology articles as a whole. The amount of evidence presented should, IMO, be seen as a positive, not as the negative that some would have it. As regards my mention that I found something else I wanted to bring up, I said it was "use of the admin bits", not misuse. Whether it was misuse will be for others to decide and even if it was misuse, it would likely be chalked up to another "honest mistake". I was going to present it not as damning evidence that Cirt should be de-sysoped but as simply another example of the heavy-handed and highly POV way that Cirt (talk · contribs) has settled himself over the Scientology articles. That is evident to any that look at his edit history in depth, disregarding the padding of non-controversial work such anti-vandalism (note though that he frequently calls what should be content dispute "vandalism" or "Page blanking, removal of content" when it comes from what might be a Scientology-sympathetic POV; witness this edit yielding this warning). --Justallofthem (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On GoodDamon's remark

GoodDamon makes a couple of points that do not hold up but I do not want to argue them as it simply comes down to rearguing a closed arbitration. I have said time and again that GoodDamon's enforcement issue is not enforcement at all but a call to redo the arbitration. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Spidern

You may want to slow down a bit on trying to prove your case in your opening statement. There will be plenty of opportunity if the arbitrators decide to hear this case. There are a number of things in those diffs that you present that I would take issue with including questionable calls as to whether an edit constitutes "pov-pushing" and bringing up a lot of material not directed related to Shutterbug or to Wikipedia, i.e. edits by Misou over on Wikinews for which he was sanctioned (while I would LOVE to talk about Wikinews, I am afraid that is beyond the range of this forum). Just my $0.02. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

I wish things hadn't come to this point. I accepted Durova's suggestion to table non-urgent disputes until other issues were resolved. I do not believe I've misused the admin tools in any way. Yet if the Committee wishes to open a case, I welcome scrutiny. Whatever venue things take I'd just like to clear the air. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I am trying to recall prior attempts at dispute resolution and listing them above under Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. Example: RFCs, Mediation, 3O, wikiquette alerts. I believe there may be more, and I invite others to add to that above list as well. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bravehartbear

I don't believe that the issues require arbitration. Tools like banning both editors in a dispute for a 24hrs period (for cool down) have not being used to the greatest extend possible. Also the extend of the dispute has not being determined properly. Being this a controversial issue very few editors can honestly maintain a NPOV and there is a lot of head bumping. What's really happening is that some editors that have that have a pro-Scientology inclination (posting mostly positive Scientology info) were gone for a few months and those editors that had a critical anti-Scientology inclination (posting mostly negative Scientology info) had a leave to create great changes in the pages with little monitoring. Now that the pro-Scientology inclined editors are back they are alarmed and the headbumping started. Right now consensus have been established in many issues in the main Scientology talk page. Because the page is frozen real talk is taking place. I say let the parties resolve this. The current management tools for dispute resolution need to be used before arbitration is even thought of. Bravehartbear (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the extend of the conflct here. This whole situacion has been artificialy created because the adminitrators have failed not only to put the situacion under control but have been contributing to the conflict. I thought this was just a small conflict but what is realy going on is a power strugle to gain ownership of page and remove the oponents.Bravehartbear (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrampes

I do not think that I should be on this list nor do I know much about scientology but I take the chance to tell my story: I was editing a couple of times in the Dianetics article. I then got reverted by Spidern when removing a source that had nothing to do with Dianetics at all. Spidern is an editor who edits only Scientology articles, removing sources and such. This strange occurrence drew my attention to Spidern's activities and finally tothis Arbitration page where I commented that the occurrences reminded me of a fight between WP:SPAs, Cirt being one of them, in a sense (Diff [4]. Several minutes(!) later Cirt informs me that I am a suspected sock puppet of "Highfructosecornsyrop" because - I assume - I edited in the article about HFCS. Unfortunately this is the only observation I can contribute, weird as it is. I cannot see that Cirt is abusing his Administrator tools but I share the POV that he is trying to discourage editors who do not share his POV while letting at least one WP:SPA (Spidern, who should be on this panel) go by. I would suggest to go through Cirts and Spiderns contributions and make an assessment on the quality and POV of his numerous edits. On the Dianetics article Spidern saw the point in the end. The article stands with my edits and the sources I found.Shrampes (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GoodDamon

I had the impression (on the other AE page) that Shutterbug is chased around for being a WP:SPA? It is my understanding that a conflict of interest is only of interest for the community if it damages the project. I am not familiar enough with the scope of Shutterbug's edits and I do not have the time to go through hundreds of edits. But if there is a damage for Wikipedia it must be possible to name it. Shrampes (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2 to GoodDamon

GoodDamon, User:Spidern is a member of Wikipedia since 6 weeks, has done 442 article edits, 372 on scientology and 35 not on scientology [5]. I got fooled until I took a look at the articles but it is that many. Along with that he has contributed 165 talk page edits, 152 on scientology. Maybe I am just a bit picky, but to me this is "a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia", or WP:SPA. Most of edits were to delete references or to add non-scholar sources. That sometimes has a certain value just as Shutterbug's or Cirt's edits have a certain value. As long as they are open about their affiliations there should be no problem. But why is Spidern not in this RFAR? Shrampes (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Misou

Yes, this needs to be done. I think that everyone editing in the Scientology edits must be forced to declare any personal interest, any information about payments or advantages received for editing etc. Then, Scientology is the only project I know with MANY HUNDREDS of one-sided articles (and many pushed to existence by a common source who was called "Smee" a while ago and is now "Cirt"). The 2007 Arbcom had one huge mistake: it focused on the "bad scientologists" and left out half the picture, was totally blind towards POV editors from the "anti-scientology camp". As long as this discrimination continues there will be no peace ever. This is to be avoided this time. Also, the probation over the articles needs to be renewed and enforced. Otherwise I am not available for this right now, time wise, but will keep an eye as possible. If someone has a question or so please send me an email through WP. Thanks. Misou (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shutterbug

Yes, please take this case. I can do no edits without being attacked by either Cirt or somebody else who pulls up the unfinished "Arbitration" of last year like a dead pack rat. It sounded ok that time but it turns out to be too indistinct, too open for arbitrary attacks etc., especially since I found more time for edits again. I am not going to leave voluntarily and I will continue to use a) my own computer, b) public computers, c) my wireless laptop, d) computers in the Church of Scientology and any station I please. Why couldn't the old Arbitration decide on me "Scientology proxy issue"? Because it's a lie to say that "everyone using the same internet access MUST be the same person". This issue is so fluffed up, unbelievable, that I am happy to have another ArbCom. Apologies to the members of this one for the waste of time, but the last one left some things open which I only realize now. Shutterbug (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Spidern

I note that you are following the "smear everything on one person" tactic that has been used in the old ArbCom. What does an IP from the "church of scientology san francisco" to do with me? I have never been there but if so and if I would have used their wireless net (if they have one), what's the significance? What about an IP registered to churchofscientology.info. That's the filtering proxy we are talking about for 18 months now. What does a "ban" on Wikinews (which on top of that does not exist) have to do with this? Aside from its irrelevance it is a lie. I have never been banned on Wikinews, and not even blocked because of any internet line I used. That's shabby tactics you are using, half-truths, random "bad sounding" information. Shutterbug (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more details about me personally[6]. Shutterbug (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jayen466

Sourcing

Many articles in this topic area are poorly sourced. Scholarship is ignored. Operation Clambake has more citations than scholarly standard works that are required reading in university syllabuses. Self-published sites and poor journalistic sources are employed to score points. I would like to see the arbitration committee take this case and consider strengthening existing article probation remedies to ensure adherence to the highest standards of sourcing, as per WP:RS#Scholarship. Such new remedies might exclude or limit the use of the following:

  • Primary sources (e.g. Hubbard's writings, court documents), whether used in favour of Scientology or as ammunition against it: excluded unless they have been cited in reliable sources published by reputable publishing houses.
  • Essays on self-published websites that have not been published by a reputable publishing house: excluded.

Use of such sources to contribute article content should be made an actionable AE offence, leading to blocks and topic bans.

Allegations of COI editing

The present situation is clearly intolerable. There has to be a clear decision as to whether it is okay for Shutterbug and other Scientologists to edit, even if they do some of their edits from IP addresses registered to the Church of Scientology. My personal impression here is that we are dealing with individuals, who should be allowed to edit like anyone else. Other editors are free to disagree. However, I would suggest that once a decision is taken, it has to be adhered to without second-guessing. If Shutterbug, say, is allowed to edit, any further references to her edits as "edit by Church of Scientology", or any further attempts to invalidate her views based on her religion, must be considered a clear and actionable WP:PA and AE offence resulting in a temporary topic ban for the editor concerned. Of course, all these standards, incl. the existing remedies formulated in the previous arbcom, should be applied to Scientologist editors as well. Jayen466 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

  • Comment, it is not clear to me why the Community can not resolve the matter with the existing sanctions and other options available to the Community? Can you spell that out more specifically. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. Thanks for the additional comments, they were helpful. Will look at all involved users per usual practice. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I think there is all the history we could need to show that this area presents problems not typical of most content on the site. Even if it is only a matter of reviewing and consolidating material that has been covered in the past, it looks to me like a case in Arbitration, to consider the conduct of all named parties and any others, could be helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to consider allegations of co-ordinated editing and conflicts of interest, and also for a check of the efficacy of existing remedies on the COFS case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to review current status of this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Morven. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept (after the fact). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

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

Principles

Findings of fact

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.

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology&oldid=282078527"