Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused and 1 who is inactive), so 7 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[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest[edit]

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]
  4. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Quality of sources[edit]

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]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutrality and sources[edit]

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 itself constitute "original research". Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. Per Newyorkbrad and FloNight. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum[edit]

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]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Avoiding apparent impropriety[edit]

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]
  3. Risker (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  8. I agree with Sam. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 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[edit]

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]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrator conduct[edit]

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]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 23:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Return of access levels[edit]

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]
  2. Risker (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Single purpose accounts[edit]

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. Second choice. — 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]
    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]
  4. Second choice, see alternative below. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 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]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 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
  3. Per Cool Hand Luke, I find this says too little even with the addition. Risker (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Cool Hand Luke and then Risker but also Coren above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts[edit]

10.1) 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 their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support
  1. proposed alternative. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, though both are fine. Wizardman 23:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Okay. Risker (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice but either formulation is fine really. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I would omit "strongly," but I don't see the fate of the world or even of the case as turning on our adverbs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Multiple editors with a single voice[edit]

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.

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]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 23:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'm not persuaded that this oft-repeated principle has led to the effects intended. It has given free range to established users to revert edits they disagree with, whether or not there is a valid reason for the reversion, and this in turn drives the hostile editing environment noted below. Risker (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this as a last resort type remedy. We need to do it when it is impossible to tell the difference between the same editor or a close off wiki ally. When intervening, I see a difference between people with CU access, ArbCom, and impartial people working a SPI request compared with regular contributors to an article/topic editors. The people editing the articles should not be focused on the person behind the content when they edit. If they see a problem, then they need to report it in the appropriate venue. This is for a variety of reasons. They are not impartial so they can not judge when to ignore or when intervention is needed. Agree that the focus on the person instead of the edits causes the article content to suffer if we blindly revert edits. Someone more impartial and experienced will block the user if needed but not remove quality edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Risker. This principle may also prevent reaching a fair consensus when debating editorial issues. In any case, this principle excludes scenarios where an organization may have different servers and offices in different locations in the world. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support a finding like this in relation to IP evidence (that is, that we may infer sockpuppetry when users edit from the same obscuring IP addresses with the same agenda), but I think Starwood is one of the most questionable principles in our cannon. I would repudiate it and start over. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
— Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In extreme circumstances, we might wish to impose a remedy based on a finding that in a particular case, the issue is as stated here, but the situation is rare enough that I fear the articulation of the general principle might tend toward its overuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of accounts[edit]

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]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. I'd have preferred to have this principle merged with the 'Multiple editors with a single voice' above but still, I am supporting it. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Responsibility of organizations[edit]

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]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 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]
    Since it would be rare —if never at all— to see university students editing about their own universities in a questionable manner (there's little if no contreversy at all surrounding universities in the real world), what about excluding them explicitly? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not fond of imposing responsibilities on non-editors, especially when (as far as I know), we haven't even asked them to do anything about it. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per CHL,  Roger Davies talk 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people[edit]

14) Editors must take particular care when 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]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This also applies to biographical details of living people that are included in other articles. Risker (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

External links in biographies of living people[edit]

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]
    Per Coren. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is how I read EL and BLP. All of our content policies should be especially adhered to in BLPs. Much like we remove questionable prose instead of adding {{fact}}, we should remove questionable links from BLPs before debating them on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 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]
  2. per NYB. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I think that simply saying that Wikipedia:External links should be followed scrupulously should be sufficient here, perhaps with a pointer to the "what to link" section, which specifies that sites should be neutral. That would also be in keeping with the external links section of the BLP policy. Risker (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people and real usernames[edit]

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]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 21:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Okay. Risker (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Clean-up tags[edit]

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]
  3. Wizardman 23:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Permissible and even encouraged. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. That's what the tags are for. — Coren (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Good-faith participation welcome[edit]

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]
  3. Wizardman 23:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Feuds and quarrels[edit]

19) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Support:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 23:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

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]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Background[edit]

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]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Characterising the dispute[edit]

(Replaces 3 Church of Scientology now moved to 3.3)

3.0) This longstanding dispute is a struggle between two rival factions: admirers of Scientology and critics of Scientology.

A) Editors from each side have gamed policy to obtain advantage and disputes have spilled over into, for example, articles for deletion, the reliable sources noticeboard, the conflict of interests noticeboard, and sometimes the adminstrators' noticebaord.

B) Aggravating factors have been (i) the presence of editors openly editing from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities; and (ii) the apparent presence of notable critics of Scientology, from several Internet organisations, apparently editing under their own names and citing either their own or each other's self-published material.

C) Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo.

D) The worst casualties have been biographies of living people, where attempts have been repeatedly made to slant the article either towards or against the subject, depending on the point of view of the contributing editor.

E) However, this problem is not limited to biographies and many Scientology articles fail to reflect a neutral point of view and instead are either disparaging or complimentary.

F) Neutral editors entering this topic are frequently attacked from both sides and stand little chance of making progress until the key players disengage or are required to disengage.

Support:
  1. As replacement for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.  Roger Davies talk 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this nicely summarizes why this area has been a problem. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sustained POV editing[edit]

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]
  3. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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, [3] and frequently engage in sockpuppetry to avoid sanctions [4], [5]. These diffs are relevant. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

BLP violations[edit]

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]
    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]
  3. Wizardman 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 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]
  2. Would like a few diffs to go with this FOF. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

old 3.0 Church of Scientology[edit]

3.3 Editors using Church of Scientology equipment are focused on Scientology-related articles, [6] and frequently engage in sockpuppetry to avoid sanctions [7], [8]. 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]
  3. Okay as part of the comprehensive ruling. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:07, 12 May 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]
  2. Prefer 3.1. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per NYB. Wizardman 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 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]
    Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors with a single voice[edit]

4) The following accounts are single-purpose accounts focused on Scientology. These accounts edit similar articles and contribute to similar discussions from similar points of view from common IP addresses ([9], [10]) in a manner impossible to distinguish from sockpuppets and in a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest:

Support:
#  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: he was swept up with the others. He is an SPA focused exclusively on Scientology[24] and editing alongside the others. Absent technical evidence of coordination, I've switched to support 4.1.  Roger Davies talk
# — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#Similar equipment is the key here; this is not a case of "meatpuppets." Technical evidence confounds them. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wizardman 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Supporting alt. 4.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Supporting 4.1 — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Would like to split Bravehartbear off into another finding. It appears that he does in fact use different equipment than the others, and I'm uneasy with the concept of meatpuppetry—especially when the other accounts listed here are solidly linked together by shared gateways. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Cool Hand Luke; Bravehartbear's pattern of editing is sufficiently different to place him in another category. Have proposed 4.1, which is identical except for the exclusion of Bravehartbear. Risker (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors with a single voice[edit]

4.1) The following accounts are single-purpose accounts focused on Scientology. These accounts edit similar articles and contribute to similar discussions from similar points of view from common IP addresses ([25], [26]) in a manner impossible to distinguish from sockpuppets and in a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest:

Support:
  1. Proposed; identical to 4, with the exception that Bravehartbear is excluded. Risker (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Thanks! Cool Hand Luke 23:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Low activity single purpose accounts[edit]

5) The following editors are single purpose accounts whose have contributed towards creating a hostile environment:

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Real names and biographies of living people[edit]

6) The following editors are, or appear to be, the subject of Scientology-related biographies of living people:

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. appear to be, any way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Okay. Risker (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Appears to be accurate. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Need to think this one over. Will be back. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing environment[edit]

7) 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.[48], [49], [50], [51]. [52]. [53], [54], [55].

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]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Very hostile indeed. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrator conduct[edit]

8) Scientology-related articles have been under article probation since September 2007 (RfAr/COFS). Administrators are expected to set an example, and more so under such circumstances, and not contribute towards making the environment in Scientology more hostile. Examples include:

A) David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) focused on the person and not the content in opposing deletion at WP:AFD for a series of seven Scientology-related articles.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] already on article probation.[63] Although David Gerard later apologised, his remarks had already influenced the tone of the debate.[64]

B) Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) peremptorily closed three Scientology-related article for deletion discussions[65][66][67] and placed a poorly judged block on the nominator[68].

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's plenty of hostility on all sides in this area. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See generally my comments on findings 9 and 10 just below.) It is pretty clear that neither of these incidents will be featured in a highlight reel of recommended techniques for new editors or administrators. I particularly agree that Phil Sandifer should not have made the cited block, which was taken to ANI and promptly overturned. However, neither of these episodes appears to be terribly relevant to any current dispute on these articles, they are each several months old, and I do not think they need be the subject of arbitration findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AndroidCat[edit]

9) AndroidCat (talk · contribs) is a Scientology-focused single purpose account,[69] who has edit warred with neutral parties to include original research in articles, and has edit warred and apparently tag-team edited to reinstate WP:BLP violations.[70][71][72][73]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'll begin this vote, because I have to say this somewhere, with a prefatory comment. This is an extremely complex and difficult case involving one of the most vexatious and fought-over topic areas in all of Wikipedia. I would like to thank Roger Davies and Cool Hand Luke as the drafters for their enormous diligence in researching the findings and putting the proposed decision together. In doing so, they have found it necessary to go farther back into the history of several users' editing than we ordinarily do in our decisions. I can see value to doing so for the purpose of assessing a given editor's overall pattern of behavior, particularly in this sort of case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, in this instance, the adverse findings regarding this editor are based primariy on two disputes. One of these was a sourcing issue that occurred more than two years ago and seems to have been resolved through a MedCab case (AndroidCat has stated on the Workshop that he has respected the conclusion reached that the source should not be used) and the second involved just a couple of edits.
It appears likely that AndroidCat has a sufficiently strong POV on Scientology-related issues that it would be best for him to refrain from editing articles in this area, particularly BLPs, and certainly to be more punctilious about sourcing and avoiding OR and novel synthesis. However, as he points out on the Workshop, his record after years of extensive editing on Scientology-related articles reflects no blocks and no warnings under the RfAr/COFS discretionary sanctions regime. His comments on the workshop, while defensive, do not strike me as those of an incorrigible POV-pusher. All in all, I might prefer a more balanced finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar[edit]

10) Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) is primarily focused on Scientology-related articles[74], and has contributed to the toxic atmosphere with:incivility[75], [76], [77], [78] and edit-warring [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]).

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree, although there is no contribution to Scientology-related articles since 2007, and only a handful of contributions anywhere in the project since that time. Risker (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. True. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Yes, but there's nothing post-2007. Wizardman 16:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (See general comments at finding 9.) This user hasn't really edited in two years. I understand the goal of addressing the miasma in the Scientology topic area in a comprehensive way rather than being bound by an arbitrary retrospective time limitation. Nonetheless, I do not think that voting a finding on an editor who has not edited substantively for this long—and who, as it happens, has stated on the Workshop that he is unlikely to return—is the best course here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody[edit]

11) Anynobody (talk · contribs) and alternate account Anyeverybody (talk · contribs) were the primary contributor to L. Ron Hubbard and the military and USS PC-815, a ship on which Hubbard served.[84][85]. This editor has engaged in pushing a point-of-view[86][87] and has added original graphic material with the apparent object of disparaging the subject.[88][89][90][91][92] A prior Scientology arbitration determined that this editor harrassed User:Justanother, an editor with an opposing point-of-view.[93]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See general comments re findings 9 and 10 above.) A troubled past, but few Scientology-related edits for a long time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt[edit]

12) From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not appear to have deliberately misused administrative tools.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 16:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Would not be opposed to a timeframe suggestion, but I think it's implied that he hasn't deliberately violated policy since receiving his administrative tools. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made that explicit. — Roger Davies talk 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Okay now with the timeframe delineated. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There is stacks of evidence that Cirt does not like Scientology, but we already know that, and it's not the subject of this arbitration. There is no evidence of a significant problem in administrative tool use. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fair enough. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. With the date. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Okay as modified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
I think it is undisputed that at an earlier stage of his Wikipedia career, there were issues with Cirt's editing, so this requires a time frame for best evaluation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Wording now modified, change to support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added the RfA date. — Roger Davies talk 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Due to sustained interaction with Cirt over on Wikisource (but not meeting my recusal criteria). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO[edit]

Old 13 moved to 13.1.

13) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) significantly edited, between August 2005[94] and September 2007[95], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[96] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[97] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[98]; declined a CSD[99]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[100] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[101][102] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material[103][104][105][106][107].

Support
  1. Condensed replacement for old (13) now (13.1)  Roger Davies talk 09:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 02:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Replacement. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. (See generally my comments on findings 9 and 10.) I am, as with other paragraphs, concerned about the timing issue here, as none of these incidents is recent. I am also, as with other paragraphs, concerned that we are judging behavior of a couple of years ago (an eternity in wikitime) by our standards of today. Through the lens of 2009, a lot of people's behavior on Barbara Schwartz was unacceptable from a BLP perspective, but in 2006 and 2007, the applicable standards were less clear—recall the controversy that even the "QZ deletion" and "Brian Peppers" and the Badlydrawnjeff case created in early to mid-2007, which I would hope would be easy calls today. Similarly, the dividing line precluding "involved" administrators from acting with respect to articles they had edited was not as clear a couple of years ago as it is now. If the intent of the finding is that ChrisO committed misconduct with respect to each of the diffs or areas raised, I cannot agree. If, on the other hand, the intent is simply to set up the conclusion that ChrisO has edited heavily in Scientology-related areas and therefore should not be using administrator tools in those areas, then despite the passage of time that would be a sensible conclusion (and not one, I think, that ChrisO would necessarily disagree with). The earlier version of the finding, while it contains some more stale or equivocal diffs, does help clarify precisely what violations ChrisO is alleged to have committed, and I join with my colleagues in strongly urging that he avoid the types of behavior cited in the future. (All of this is written without reference to ChrisO's role in another pending case, which I have not yet finished analyzing.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old 13.0 ChrisO[edit]

13.1) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) made his first Wikipedia edit, in December 2004, with a contribution to Scientology and since then five (nos. 6, 7, 9, 13, 18) of his twenty most-edited article are Scientology related.[108] During this time, he has engaged in editing that blurs his on- and off-wiki activities, failed to separate clearly his editorial and administrative activities, and has edited in a manner suggestive of a non-neutral point of view.

A) He first edited a subsequently deleted attack page, in August 2005[109] and over 30 months, added content and references, reverted edits with which he disagreed, re-instated unreliably sourced material[110] and voted to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[111] Despite his editorial involvement, in his administrative capacity, he protected the article[112]; declined a CSD[113]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[114] Although probably acting in good faith in the block, ChrisO also indefinitely blocked twelve disruptive accounts as her sockpuppets when this was better left to an uninvolved administrator.

B) He has added or reinstated poor sources, in a manner suggestive of pursuing a point-of-view. For example:

C) In prior proceedings, ChrisO was (i) warned "to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict"[131]; and (ii) was "admonished not use ... administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus".[132] Also, ChrisO has been blocked twice for WP:3RR in 2007 and 2008[133]

D) In a prior proceeding, this editor was "instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes".[134] In 2008 and 2009, he has used rollback inappropriately in: E-meter [135]; L. Ron Hubbard [136]; Dianetics [137]; Super Power Building [138]; Battlefield Earth (novel) [139][140]; and Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act [141]

E) He has used administrative tools other than rollback while involved:

  • In January and April 2008, he protected Xenu[142], which he has contributed to since February 2004[143]. In June 2008, he protected[144], which he first edited in February 2004[145]. In July 2008, he protected Church of Scientology,[146], which he first edited in November 2003[147].
Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Are there more recent diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Added 13D and 13E.  Roger Davies talk 14:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. True, but support 13 as a condensed version. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer new version above. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In favor of the new version. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Too bulky, prefer above. Wizardman 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derflipper[edit]

14) Derflipper (talk · contribs) is more likely than not either the sockpuppet or meatpuppet of a single purpose account. This editor shared the same equipment as Shutterbug and TaborG [148]; their first ever article edit and all but two article talk space edits are Scientology-related ([149], [150]).

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See general comments on findings 9 and 10.) Fewer than 100 edits ever, and none in eight months; I understand the desire for comprehensiveness, but am not sure we need a finding on this account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit451[edit]

15) Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs) is heavily focused on Scientology and with many Scientology articles in his top edited articles. This user is a battlefield editor; has abused WP:BLP policy (examples:[151][152][153][154][155][156]) and also created an attack page pushing his POV within his/her userspace (User:Fahrenheit451/Guide).

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See general comments on findings 9 and 10 above.) There have been issues with this editor, but most are some time ago. I would also avoid the term "battlefield editor" (I believe "has used Wikipedia as a battleground" is the conventional wording, though even that is not necessarily optimal). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hkhenson[edit]

16) Hkhenson (talk · contribs) self-identifies as Keith Henson, a prominent anti-cult activist, and writer.[157] In a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest, he has engaged in the promotion of his own position in his own biography[158]; promotion of his own projects in an associate's BLP[159]; promotion of a society of which he was a founder[160]; and has created and participated in articles promoting his own theories[161][162]; citation of his own works in articles, and edit-warring to keep the content in the article[163], [164], [165].

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although I would place less emphasis on his presumed real-life identity. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Cool Hand Luke. Risker (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See general comments with findings 9 and 10.) I don't see sufficient evidence of recent Scientology-related issues to warrant a finding against this editor in this case. A reminder to this editor about COI policies might be in order, but that doesn't require an arbitration decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466[edit]

17) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic though this has been offset by edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda[166], [167], [168], [169].

Support:
  1. (revised)  Roger Davies talk 07:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Jayen466 has now acknowledged the edit-warring and apologised[170], so I've modified the remedy.  Roger Davies talk 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some of these headings are quite weak, for example the dispute over the alleged radio station, which could have reasonably looked like a podcast.[171] In many places, his apparent "agenda" has been to remove BLP violations. All that said, I remain troubled by the Rick Ross editing (first linked heading. So I support, but narrowly. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His Rick Ross contributions are my main concern, especially prior to the AfD, i.e. Sep/Oct 2008, when Jayen was editing very heavily. He backed off after the AfD. Roger Davies talk 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Cool Hand Luke. Risker (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mostly the Rick Ross issues. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See general comments at findings 9 and 10.) The Ross matter is troubling, but it was several months ago and I have seen no recurrence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John254[edit]

18) During the course of this proceeding, John254 (talk · contribs) was banned by the community for sockpuppetry[172]. Among his other infractions, John254 edited the case pages in this arbitration under two different usernames (John254 and Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs)), presenting inconsistent workshop proposals, with the apparent intent of causing drama and inflaming the dispute; this was not the first time in which John254 appeared intent on creating unnecessary controversy on already drama-laden dispute-resolution pages.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 14:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Added second sentence to tie the finding into this case and set up any related remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Jossi[edit]

19) During the course of this proceeding, in which certain allegations had been made against Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jossi voluntarily resigned his adminship on 23 December 2008 by email to the Arbitration Committee, when he stated he was retiring from Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. With remedy 1 below. Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Roger Davies talk 14:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Added "in which certain allegations had been made against Jossi"; the fact that the resignation occurred during an arbitration case is the basis for the remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Justallofthem[edit]

20) Justallofthem (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who has engaged in sockpuppetry[173]; has used Wikipedia process to pursue a campaign against Cirt.[174], [175], [176]; and incivility during this proceeding.[177]

Support
  1. --ROGER DAVIES 03:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added diff about incivility.  Roger Davies talk 05:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I would like to point out that his sock account User:Alfadog made almost no Scientology edits at all. It would probably not have been identified but for the widespread use of checkuser in this area. His Alfadog account suggests that user might be effectively topic banned. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't think this user is as irremediably awful as the wording suggests (see my comments when I get to the remedies), but there has been a variety of issues over a long period of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Misou[edit]

21) Misou (talk · contribs) is a Scientology-focused single purpose account[178] who has edited from Scientology-operated equipment both on Wikipedia[179] and on WikiNews[180]; has been blocked on Wikipedia for personal attacks and incivility[181]; has been blocked on WikiNews for concealing connections with the Church of Scientology[182]; and continued to behave in an uncivil manner[183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188].

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 15:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moved from abstain. Risker (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Can't support the last phrase ("still persists in incivility") with diffs from 2007. Suggest rewording to "continued to behave in an uncivil manner" or words to that effect. Risker (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to support after tweak. Risker (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the language.  Roger Davies talk 20:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (See general comments on findings 9 and 10.) Again, although I understand the structure and philosophy of the decision, I am concerned that most of the violations occurred long ago by wikitime standards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Are there more recent examples of incivility? The en.wp blocks and diffs are all from 2007. Cool Hand Luke 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor hardly posted in 2008 apart from in this and another proceeding. — Roger Davies talk 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini[edit]

22) Currently inactive, Orsini (talk · contribs) edited vigorously on a now-deleted BLP in order to include unpublished and disparaging content on the subject.[189][190][191], while claiming familiarity with the subject's writing style,[192] and arguing strenuously at AFD that the article should be kept. The article was later deleted as an attack page.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See my general comments on findings 9 and 10.) This editor has not edited in more than two years and I would not reach a finding about him. His earlier behavior on a contentious BLP typifies why we have developed, strengthened, and emphasized our BLP policy (both through community policy development and through decisions of this Committee); we cannot anachronistically judge that conduct by our more current standards, and certainly taking the wrong side in an AfD discussion is not sanctionable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross[edit]

23) Inactive since giving evidence in this proceeding, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) who also edits as Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) and also seemingly from anonymous IPs, is apparently the owner of a website devoted to the study of "destructive cults, controversial groups and movements",[193] and the subject of a biography of a living person, Rick Ross (consultant).

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Harmless to note, I suppose. I do not perceive anything adverse to this editor inherent in the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Shrampes[edit]

24) Inactive since giving evidence in this proceeding, Shrampes (talk · contribs) has edited primarily in Scientology-related articles[194] or in support of other Scientology single purpose accounts (examples: [195], [196]), sometimes from the same IP addresses[197]. This account is in all probability operated by the same puppetmaster as two other Scientology single purpose accounts, of Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs) and Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs).

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See general comments 9 and 10 above.) Highfructosecornsyrup last edited in December 2006; Wikipediatrix last edited in December 2007; Shrampes first edited in October 2007, but his few edits during 2007 primarily related to silly putty. I understand the theory of the case that there is rampant socking all over the place on these articles, but in the absence of block evasion or the like, I don't think that abusive socking can readily be shown by reference to accounts whose edits do not overlap in time period. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug[edit]

25) Inactive since giving evidence in this proceedings, Shutterbug (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who has pushed a point of view and engaged in disruption. Disruptive behaviour includes: sockpuppetry on Wikipedia[198][199]); ban evasion on WikiNews[200]; breached neutrality policies[201]); been incivil[202]; and inproperly removed sourced material[203][204].

Support:
  1. CE to note editor has been inactive since giving evidence.  Roger Davies talk 11:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Steve Dufour[edit]

26) Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) was a considerable contributor to Scientology articles, and worked hard to improve the now-deleted Barbara Schwarz attack page, but has since agreed informally, as part of an unblock agreement[205], to not edit within the topic.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Be nice to have a diff above, but I did note this on his talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Note that he worked to remove BLP violations from the attack article. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. His efforts to have the Barbara Schwarz article toned down and/or deleted were commendable. I've tweaked the language.  Roger Davies talk 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Cool Hand Luke. Risker (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The second part of the finding comes a little bit out of the blue—he was editing appropriately, even commendably, but then agreed to a topic-ban?—but the finding nonetheless appears accurate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tilman[edit]

27) Tilman (talk · contribs), a Scientology-focused account,[206] is apparently Tilman Hausherr. Currently less active than before in Wikipedia, this editor has engaged in edit-warring to include primary source material in a biography of a living person[207][208][209][210] at a time when he was actively exchanging insults with the BLP's subject on usenet;[211][212][213]; and continued to edit the biography after this apparent conflict was brought to user's attention.[214]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Grammatical reordering of the first sentence done, other arbitrators may revert if they feel the meaning has been altered. Risker (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See comments above on findings 9 and 10.) Again I am concerned that the policy violations are some time ago—although the BLP-related behavior here was unusually nasty, and my AGF-minded "remember that the BLP ethos wasn't as well-developed back then" type of comment can only extend so far. (As a matter of copyediting, should the first line be "less active" rather than "less inactive"?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Legendary Shadow![edit]

28) The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs) is a second account of sockmaster Richard Rolles (talk · contribs), topic-banned from Scientology-related articles and related talk pages[215].

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I will support, but with the reservation (as I stated it on the workshop page) that I wouldn't ordinarily consider it to be a violation of a topic ban to edit on an arbitration case relating to that topic. (If nothing else, the user might be using the case to appeal from the topic ban itself, or might otherwise have relevant evidence to present.) I can readily agree, however, that concealed violation of a topic ban through socking is unacceptable. I propose that words such as ", without disclosing the relationship between the accounts" or the like be added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor himself believed it was in violation of the ban and joined in anyway. However, the second sentence is not really relevant (as the remedy is purely procedural, per Steve Dufour), so I've deleted it. This is probably not the best time or place to discuss the wider issue of topic-banned people generally giving evidence.  Roger Davies talk 04:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Touretzky[edit]

29) Touretzky (talk · contribs) is apparently David S. Touretzky, a notable critic of Scientology, and is focused on Scientology-related articles[216]. In a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest, this editor has contributed heavily to Applied Scholastics, where he is apparently also cited as a source, and has linked StudyTech.org, a website critical of Scientology which he apparently operates.[217][218]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. (See general comments on findings 9 and 10.) Again, this is largely historical; this user has no edits in 2009, and had 6 edits in all of 2008. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

30) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  2. (Expanded the wiki-abbreviation). Risker (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked[edit]

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.[219] 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]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Acceptable because of the IPBE option. The IPs identified should probably be reviewed on a periodic basis (annually?) to verify they're still allocated to COS. Risker (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 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)[reply]
    Our alternatives are to block them entirely, or checkuser every "pro-Scientology" editor on this topic. I find the latter unacceptable. It is quite broad, but it seems that they're funneling a lot of editing traffic through a few IPs, which make socks impossible to track. These users cause disproportionate mischief (as does the dominant culture of hair-trigger checkuser). We block other gateways, even college campuses—even when there's much more collateral damage. Cool Hand Luke 03:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Scope of Scientology topic ban[edit]

3A) 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]
  3. Wizardman 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. After some reflection, it seems that the talk pages should be included. They've often been quite noxious. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I suggest adding ", or prominent critics or opponents of Scientology" to (i). I might also consider holding off on applying the ban to talkpages as well as the articles themselves, at least for some of the less egregious offenders. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments
  • I have been asked whether the topic ban should include developing related articles in user space. I don't mind though it could lead to gaming.  Roger Davies talk 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3B) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. More or less straight crib from the West Bank case.  Roger Davies talk 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good addition. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Liked the West Bank finding. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Any remedy which promotes good content production is a plus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discretionary topic ban[edit]

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]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Important. We've tried to pick up everyone, but this is a reasonably large topic, so new sanctions should be added as needed. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moved from abstention. Risker (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Need to consider an alternative that includes the points Newyorkbrad mentions above. Will try to draft one in the next few days. Risker (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Moving to support, no brilliant ideas have come to me. Risker (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts[edit]

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]
  3. If you are unable to edit wikipedia without being focused almost exclusively in a small area, then maybe Wikipedia's not the place for you. Wizardman 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
# — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 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]
  2. Per Brad. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Brad. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Tricky one. Can see rationale for both sides here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the other discretionary findings might be enough. Would support with an additional caveat that they're POV SPAs. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts with agendas[edit]

5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda 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.

Support
  1. Proposed. Hopefully this resolves the concerns expressed at (R5).  Roger Davies talk 07:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good job, Roger. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. More subjective, but could do the job. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't see much additional enforcement authority conferred by this remedy beyond what is already conferred by remedy 4, except that the initial ban can be one year rather than three months. But in view of the history this is reasonable under the circumstances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Account limitation[edit]

6) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. 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.

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]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I also strongly agree with Coren. "Legitimate socks" should be exceptionally rare. I dislike the holes in WP:SOCK, and I'm glad that we're patching them up for this topic. Cool Hand Luke 03:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as reworded (although I interpret the last sentence to mean accounts that are reasonably concluded to be socks of the restricted editor, not accounts that "share the same editing pattern" by reason simply of common interest). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
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) Changed to support after rewording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've added the bit about Scientology-related topics. I'm not sure though whether it opens the door to editing Scientology-related topics from alternative accounts, which is undesirable. Could you let your lawyerly brain loose on the text and plug it if needed. Roger Davies talk 10:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're trying to do something like the non-proxy requirement of the Mantanmoreland case. I would support some rephrased sort of finding. Cool Hand Luke 03:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
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)(Move to support) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour and consequences[edit]

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]
  2. "will be hit on the head with sticks" is not appropriate for an arbcom decision. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Rlevse. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Rlevse. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm really fond of "hit on the head with sticks," but I agree it now seems dated. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Roger Davies talk 07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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[edit]

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 discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy 4 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.  Roger Davies talk 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tentative support. 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]
  3. I recognize it, too, and like it. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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 think of no reason so compelling. — Coren (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think the Mantanmoreland decision was well thought-out and balanced (save one detail now immaterial). I agree with the article probation concept. We need to get pioneers to settle this frontier town, and they will only do it if the Sheriff clears out the bandit gangs. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Review of articles urged[edit]

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.  Roger Davies talk 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Indeed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Multiple editors with a single voice topic-banned and restricted[edit]

10) The following accounts are topic-banned from Scientology and each restricted to one account:

*Bravehartbear
Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked to reflect FOF.  Roger Davies talk 07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although I think the FOF should be tweaked (see #Multiple editors with a single voice), I think this is the right remedy. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. with tweak. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Low activity single purpose accounts topic-banned and restricted[edit]

11) The following editors are topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account:

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Real names and biographies of living people (editors instructed)[edit]

12) The following editors are requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish their identities or to rename:

and are, in the meantime, topic-banned from Scientology; and restricted to a single account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Note:
The editors have now contacted the committee and the topic-ban is therefore moot.  Roger Davies talk 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Editing environment (editors cautioned)[edit]

13) Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Scientology are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Scientology making this topic a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that all editors adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments, and complying at all times with the policy on biographies of living persons in reference to the various living people whose names come up from time to time in these articles.

Support:
  1. Proposed. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (minor CE)  Roger Davies talk 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

AndroidCat topic-banned[edit]

14) AndroidCat (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Antaeus Feldspar topic-banned[edit]

15) Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If he is gone, the ban will not harm. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
#He's made 5 edits since June 2007, zero since September 2008. There's hiding from an arbcom case and there's being gone from the site. His edits warrant a topic ban, but it's moot if he's gone. On second thought, if he's gone a topic ban won't hurt him then. Wizardman 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Anynobody topic-banned and restricted[edit]

16) Anynobody (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Evidence doesn't overly show it, but factor in previous cases and it's justified. Wizardman 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I disagree with Wizardman; this topic ban is well-justified. Wikipedia should not tolerate POV original research. User was unable to improve even after the previous cases. Cool Hand Luke 16:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

ChrisO restricted[edit]

17) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[220] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.

Support
  1. Replacement for old (17.0)  Roger Davies talk 09:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is a good compromise with ChrisO. Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree with this binding voluntary editing restriction as a good solution. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support; added last sentence, which is necessary to make this an active remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Old 17.0 ChrisO topic-banned[edit]

17.1) ChrisO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. I was planning to support but agree to the binding voluntary editing restriction above instead. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, even though the alternative above will do the trick. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 17. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 17. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. am in two minds. Am pleased to see 17.0 above though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer above. Wizardman 02:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer above. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
  1. Are there newer diffs than 2007 where he edited Scientology topics? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Added to FOF 13D and 13E.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derflipper topic-banned[edit]

18) Derflipper is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No contributions since Sep. 2008, but as a single purpose account, this is valid. Wizardman 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fahrenheit451 topic-banned[edit]

19) Fahrenheit451 is topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Hkhenson instructed[edit]

20) Hkhenson is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename and is, in the meantime, topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This now moot.  Roger Davies talk 20:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Can deal with his email correspondence after the cases closes. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Needs up dating, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
User:Hkhenson has now contacted the committee and the topic-ban is therefore moot.  Roger Davies talk 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Jayen466 topic-banned[edit]

21) Jayen466 is topic banned from Scientology for one month.

Support:
#  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen466 has since apologised and accordingly a more specific remedy would be appropriate.  Roger Davies talk

:# — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Support 21.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Feels kinda weak to me. Second choice. Wizardman 01:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too broad, too short to be more than symbolic. His Scientology work doesn't trouble me in general. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 21.1. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is symbolic, and thus limp. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 21.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles[edit]

21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

Support
  1. Replacement for (21).  Roger Davies talk 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Okay Wizardman 01:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Much narrower, and an improvement. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

John254 already banned[edit]

22) This editor has been banned by the community.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 22:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although this is really an acknowledgement, not a remedy. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's ban of ..." is wording that's been used in the past. But this works, too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Justallofthem topic-banned[edit]

23) User:Justallofthem is topic-banned from Scientology; prohibited from engaging in any Wikipedia process involving Cirt without the prior consent of the Arbitration Committee; and restricted to a single account of his choosing, and all his other accounts are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.

Support:
 Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to complete ban him, actually, given the evidence. Wizardman 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Risker (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. --FloNight♥♥♥ 23:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Move back to my original vote to oppose since this vote makes in more confusing now. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. My real first choice would be a time-limited ban of three or six months, followed by a period of restriction, as outlined. Because I am voting so late in the day, it ill-behooves me to add a whole new proposal, so I will make this my choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. too many chances. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Changed my mind after rethinking it over, per Cas. Wizardman 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Back to my original oppose vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)(Move to support as second choice to assist in closing the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  4. No. Umpteenth chances are a net loss for Wikipedia. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Come back to this. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justallofthem banned[edit]

23.1) User:Justallofthem is restricted to one account and banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

Support
  1. Alternative to (23).  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First Only choice. Though technically a ban would restrict him to zero acounts. Wizardman 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, there is a distinction: if he they appeal the ban, the account restriction remains. — Coren (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. His non-Scientology sock Alfadog (talk · contribs), convinces me that a topic ban would be effective and beneficial. Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Would like to try a topic ban first. Risker (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comment on 23. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Come back to this. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Move to support. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misou topic-banned[edit]

24) Misou is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Orsini topic-banned[edit]

25) Orsini is topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted[edit]

26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Shrampes topic-banned[edit]

27) Shrampes is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted[edit]

28) User:Shutterbug is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd be fine with a complete ban even given the evidence. Wizardman 01:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Steve Dufour topic-ban replaced[edit]

29) Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology: this restriction replaces any prior informal arrangement.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. procedurally, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Procedural. Cool Hand Luke 04:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Procedurally. Wizardman 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I've thought about this, and I don't think that we can endorse the backroom deal because we don't really know what it was. There may have been good or bad reasons for it. From what I can tell, his work on the attack BLP was fantastic, and I would give him a barnstar for it. I wouldn't mind if he stays in this area. See relevant section on the PD talk page where the nature of his agreement is discussed. If he wants to continue with his arrangement, I'm fine with that, but ArbCom doesn't need to enforce it. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I misunderstood the purpose of this finding. We're putting his restriction under our authority, so that we can more easily review whether restrictions are necessary at all. The backroom deal, on the other hand, is unreviewable. If Steve wants to edit Scientology in the future, he should ask ArbCom to review the topic ban. This is therefore procedural.[221] Cool Hand Luke 04:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cool Hand Luke. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) As noted above, switching for procedural reasons to ensure consistency in application of sanctions. Risker (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No finding of any actual misconduct by this editor. The substitution of an ArbCom remedy for the prior arrangement is not harmless, because under remedy 3, he now cannot request lifting or modification of the topic ban for six months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The clock runs from the date of the original topic ban surely.  Roger Davies talk 05:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Not sure on him, actually. Will think it over. Wizardman 01:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman topic-banned[edit]

30) Tilman is topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

The Legendary Shadow! topic-banned[edit]

31) The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology. This topic ban replaces the prior informal topic ban. The editor is also restricted to a single account.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (I don't think Nishkid64's name needs to be included in the final decision.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken it out.  Roger Davies talk 05:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Touretzky[edit]

32) Touretzky is topic-banned from Scientology.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

33) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one 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]
  5. Wizardman 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Uninvolved administrators[edit]

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 and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "... and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case" per Newyorkbrad's suggestion in old (3), now removed.[222]  Roger Davies talk 05:29, 2 May 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]
  5. Wizardman 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Noting that the link to "appeal of discretionary sanctions" needs fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] [pf] 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comment
Changed last line (broken link) to refer to the Arbitration Committee.  Roger Davies talk 11:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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. Passing at this time:

  • Proposed principles: 1-9, 10.1, 11, 12-19
  • Proposed findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
  • Proposed findings of fact (moot): 6, 16
  • Proposed remedies: 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5.1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21.1, 22, 23.1, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
  • Proposed remedies (moot): 12, 20
  • Proposed enforcement: 1, 2

Not passing at this time:

  • Proposed principles: 10
  • Proposed findings of fact: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4, 13.1
  • Proposed remedies: 5, 7, 17.1, 21, 23,
  • Proposed enforcement:

For final endorsement. One question : As I underlined above, should FoF 3.1 and FoF 3.2 be passed as distinct from FoF 3 or should they be superseded by FoF 3? - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F3.0 (as I've temporarily numbered it in the main body) is supersedes 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, so I've moved 3.1 and 3.2 to Not Passing.
I've added a note to R12 and R20 that the remedy is now moot and should not be notified to the editor.  Roger Davies talk 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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.

  1. I'm done. Wizardman 22:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With one of the 23s passing, I think we are done. — Coren (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Move to close. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close.  Roger Davies talk 01:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I really think the Justa remedy needs to be resolved. Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with letting this close. Cool Hand Luke 14:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed back to my original vote to oppose since with John's vote, my second choice made it more confusing not less. I think that fixes the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved my support for the original proposal to oppose.  Roger Davies talk 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    23.1 is passsing, 23 isn't, so the Justa remedy is resolved. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose temporarily. Please hold off for 24 hours - I have been away for the holiday weekend and would like to go through at least the high points once again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Withdraw opposition; okay with closing (although a little time for the other arbs to review a couple of my copyediting suggestions etc. wouldn't hurt). Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose for a few more hours at least. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision&oldid=1142507289"