all proposed
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
- Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
- Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
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.
On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.
- For all items
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) Due to continued disruption Terryeo is banned from editing articles related to Dianetics or Scientology pending resolution of this request.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not prohibits use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks prohibits personal attacks.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject. The practice of first setting forth the positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Edit warring is harmful. Content disputes should be resolved by recourse to verifiable sources and discussion, not repeated reverts of an article.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
5) Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
6) Wikipedia talk pages offer the opportunity for dialog. Removal of discussion by others hinders that necessary process.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) The locus of this dispute involves edits by Terryeo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Dianetics, Scientology, and related articles.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Terryeo has made personal attacks [1], [2].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Terryeo's interpretation of NPOV, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#First assertion: Editors understand the stated word differently contains elements of the sympathetic point of view approach which has been considered and rejected by Wikipedia policy makers.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Xenu.net ( Operation Clambake) is not a personal website in the sense that it represents only the opinion of one person. It is a prominent website critical of Scientology, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#xenu.net content.
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I disagree, JayJG; I think that it's pretty clearly used as a prominent reference.
➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Operation Clambake is clearly a personal website. It's operated and owned by one individual, and the majority of the material on it is written by that individual (though he does include articles written by others). The author writes about the site in the first person (see http://www.xenu.net/cb-faq.html), and notes that he personally covers all its costs ("I personally cover all the costs to keep Operation Clambake on the Internet.") Little is known about him besides his website, which apparently is his sole claim to fame (see Andreas Heldal-Lund, which has no personal or biographical information about him at all, and has only 3 references, 2 of which are from his own website). Yes, he's spent a lot of time investigating Scientology, but that still doesn't make his website anything more than a personal endeavor. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Jayjg has persuaded me ➥the Epopt 19:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't particularly feel like making a determination of this sort through arbitration. Too much of an editorial issue. Dmcdevit· t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
5) Terryeo has engaged in edit warring of Scientology related articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Edit warring.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
6) Terryeo has repeatedly removed references to sources, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Removal of references for POV reasons and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#First assertion.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
7) Terryeo has removed material posted by others to talk pages, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Inappropriate removal of content from talk pages.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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) Terryeo is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be blocked briefly if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Terryeo is placed on Probation indefinitely. He may be banned from any article, talk or policy page which he disrupts. Bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Terryeo is placed on general probation indefinitely. For good cause, any three administrators may ban Terryeo from Wikipedia. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.
- Oppose:
- The case is related to Scientology. Over and above that, I weakly supported the Probation, but this is too much. Evidence does not support the need for this in conjunction with the topical ban. Dmcdevit· t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure that this is necessary in this case.
- Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
1) Bans may be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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.
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.
- All the motions that are going to pass have passed. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Close ➥the Epopt 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Close. Charles Matthews 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Close. James F. (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
all proposed
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
- Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
- Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
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.
On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.
- For all items
Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
Place those on /Workshop.
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}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) Due to continued disruption Terryeo is banned from editing articles related to Dianetics or Scientology pending resolution of this request.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not prohibits use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks prohibits personal attacks.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject. The practice of first setting forth the positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Edit warring is harmful. Content disputes should be resolved by recourse to verifiable sources and discussion, not repeated reverts of an article.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
5) Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
6) Wikipedia talk pages offer the opportunity for dialog. Removal of discussion by others hinders that necessary process.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
1) The locus of this dispute involves edits by Terryeo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Dianetics, Scientology, and related articles.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Terryeo has made personal attacks [1], [2].
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Terryeo's interpretation of NPOV, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#First assertion: Editors understand the stated word differently contains elements of the sympathetic point of view approach which has been considered and rejected by Wikipedia policy makers.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Xenu.net ( Operation Clambake) is not a personal website in the sense that it represents only the opinion of one person. It is a prominent website critical of Scientology, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#xenu.net content.
- Support:
- Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I disagree, JayJG; I think that it's pretty clearly used as a prominent reference.
➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Operation Clambake is clearly a personal website. It's operated and owned by one individual, and the majority of the material on it is written by that individual (though he does include articles written by others). The author writes about the site in the first person (see http://www.xenu.net/cb-faq.html), and notes that he personally covers all its costs ("I personally cover all the costs to keep Operation Clambake on the Internet.") Little is known about him besides his website, which apparently is his sole claim to fame (see Andreas Heldal-Lund, which has no personal or biographical information about him at all, and has only 3 references, 2 of which are from his own website). Yes, he's spent a lot of time investigating Scientology, but that still doesn't make his website anything more than a personal endeavor. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Jayjg has persuaded me ➥the Epopt 19:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't particularly feel like making a determination of this sort through arbitration. Too much of an editorial issue. Dmcdevit· t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
5) Terryeo has engaged in edit warring of Scientology related articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Edit warring.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
6) Terryeo has repeatedly removed references to sources, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Removal of references for POV reasons and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#First assertion.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
7) Terryeo has removed material posted by others to talk pages, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Inappropriate removal of content from talk pages.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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) Terryeo is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be blocked briefly if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
2) Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
3) Terryeo is placed on Probation indefinitely. He may be banned from any article, talk or policy page which he disrupts. Bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
4) Terryeo is placed on general probation indefinitely. For good cause, any three administrators may ban Terryeo from Wikipedia. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.
- Oppose:
- The case is related to Scientology. Over and above that, I weakly supported the Probation, but this is too much. Evidence does not support the need for this in conjunction with the topical ban. Dmcdevit· t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain:
- James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure that this is necessary in this case.
- Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
1) Bans may be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
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.
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.
- All the motions that are going to pass have passed. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Close ➥the Epopt 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Close. Charles Matthews 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Close. James F. (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)