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.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) This dispute or series of disputes is focused on Scientology ( | 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).
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]).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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:
5) The following editors are single purpose accounts whose have contributed towards creating a hostile environment:
6) The following editors are, or appear to be, the subject of Scientology-related biographies of living people:
{{
Scientology and the Internet}}
.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].
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].
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]
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]).
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]
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.
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].
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:
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]).
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).
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].
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].
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.
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.
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]
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].
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.
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).
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).
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].
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.
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]
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].
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]
30) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
10) The following accounts are topic-banned from Scientology and each restricted to one account:
11) The following editors are topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account:
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.
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.
14) AndroidCat ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.
15) Antaeus Feldspar ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.
16) Anynobody ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
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.
17.1) ChrisO ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.
18) Derflipper is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
19) Fahrenheit451 is topic-banned from Scientology.
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.
21) Jayen466 is topic banned from Scientology for one month.
:# —
Rlevse •
Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.
22) This editor has been banned by the community.
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.
23.1) User:Justallofthem is restricted to one account and banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.
24) Misou is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
25) Orsini is topic-banned from Scientology.
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.
27) Shrampes is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
28) User:Shutterbug is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
29) Steve Dufour ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology: this restriction replaces any prior informal arrangement.
30) Tilman is topic-banned from Scientology.
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.
32) Touretzky is topic-banned from Scientology.
33) {text of proposed remedy}
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.
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.
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:
Not passing at this time:
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)
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) This dispute or series of disputes is focused on Scientology ( | 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).
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]).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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:
5) The following editors are single purpose accounts whose have contributed towards creating a hostile environment:
6) The following editors are, or appear to be, the subject of Scientology-related biographies of living people:
{{
Scientology and the Internet}}
.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].
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].
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]
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]).
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]
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.
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].
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:
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]).
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).
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].
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].
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.
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.
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]
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].
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.
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).
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).
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].
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.
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]
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].
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]
30) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
10) The following accounts are topic-banned from Scientology and each restricted to one account:
11) The following editors are topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account:
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.
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.
14) AndroidCat ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.
15) Antaeus Feldspar ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.
16) Anynobody ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
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.
17.1) ChrisO ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.
18) Derflipper is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
19) Fahrenheit451 is topic-banned from Scientology.
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.
21) Jayen466 is topic banned from Scientology for one month.
:# —
Rlevse •
Talk • 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.
22) This editor has been banned by the community.
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.
23.1) User:Justallofthem is restricted to one account and banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.
24) Misou is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
25) Orsini is topic-banned from Scientology.
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.
27) Shrampes is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
28) User:Shutterbug is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.
29) Steve Dufour ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology: this restriction replaces any prior informal arrangement.
30) Tilman is topic-banned from Scientology.
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.
32) Touretzky is topic-banned from Scientology.
33) {text of proposed remedy}
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.
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.
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:
Not passing at this time:
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)
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.