Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vassyana (talk | contribs) at 15:43, 9 June 2009 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG none none 8 June 2009
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (3) none none 5 June 2009
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes none none 2 June 2009
Request for clarification: Appeals process none none 30 May 2009
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2) none none 30 May 2009
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (1) none none 31 May 2009
Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2 none none 27 May 2009
Request for clarification: How to appeal to the community none none 13 May 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:Anynobody|Request for clarification: User:Anynobody]] none none 3 June 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:Shutterbug|Request for clarification: User:Shutterbug]] none none 30 May 2009

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Beetstra

In principle 8.1.5 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG#Purpose of the spam blacklist) is stated "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions.".

Case: A true spammer is coming to spam his commercial link to Wikipedia (e.g. a porn or viagra site), adding it to multiple pages, using multiple accounts/IPs. When those links are reverted, then the editors who revert, make the content decision 'we don't want your link here'. When the case gets too difficult to keep reverting and blocking and page protections are not deterring the editor who pushes the link, then an admin could add their link to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That admin is still basically making the decision 'we do not want your content here'.

So: "Every blacklisting is a content decision with as basis: 'we do not want this content (links) on our pages'". Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions", it is actually the only thing the blacklist is used for.

I believe this does not affect anyone else, but I'd like to hear some more about this. Could the ArbComm clarify how they see this Principle implemented?

Answer to Rootology

  • Rootology, even if the blacklist is only used to blacklist spam links (and in the cited case there are several examples given of links which are blacklisted even when they are not (strictly) spammed), that is still in conflict with "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions", as the content decision is that we do not want those spam links here.
  • Yes, you make sense (though that would be something for community discussion for what the spam blacklist should be used, the abusefilter was to 'filter abuse', still it is widely used to 'tag' at the moment), but again, the current statement does not say that (spam is still content ..). Hence the clarification request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Coren

  • I feel this needs a further workout, though this is getting closer. I may be playing the devils advocate here (but spammers are also not strange of that tactics, see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#Common spammer strawmen, examples in WP:GRIEF, Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Advertisers, &c). There have been cases in the past, where a spammer is adding his links, which may or may not be reliable sources, between <ref> and </ref> marks, making them appear as references ('reference spamming'). Also, spamming a reliable source in the external links section would still be falling under the statement, even if it is just blatant spamming (see e.g. Special:Contributions/122.170.120.134, this was certainly not helpful, but it is a reliable source). Also, this now would mean that if the source is deemed unreliable (see in relation to this case Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#www.newenergytimes.com), the link still can be blacklisted. I see what the statement is meant to be getting at, but I am not sure if this is clarified enough. Maybe it should be "content and it's sources should not be enforced using the blacklist", but then I could say: "the content can still be added, you only can't use this source". --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fritzpoll

This does need clarification - what is a "content decision" in the context of this Arbcom finding? All links are arguably content decisions, and with this Arbcom finding it is possible to game all link removal and efforts at blacklisting. Perhaps Arbcom needs to be more specific in its wording here - it arises from not blacklisting to prevent the use of certain material in sources. Given this isolated incident, do you really have to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Question by Rootology

Why or when would it be valid to ever use the blacklisting except in linking to spammed content, with "consensus" that it was spammed? rootology (C)(T) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Beetstra: I get the language concern here, but my question is more simple and binary than that-- is there any situation where a tool designed to curb spam link abuse is allowed to be used for other purposes? I.e., if someone links what they consider WP:RS as an in-line source 5-6 times in 5-6 articles, is that spam, or a pure editorial content dispute? Versus, if someone links some page in under WP:EL 60-70 times? My concern is that in my mind something like the spamlist should only be used to for you know, actual spam, never because someone disagrees on an article's standing under WP:RS. Am I making sense? rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from FlyingPenguin1

Is linkspam really considered "content" (as opposed to "noise") in this context? FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • To be clear; when we refer to content we mean "content that would normally be subject to the normal editorial process". In other words, the blacklists should not be used to suppress reliable sources; promotional material, linkspam and other undesirable flotsam is not protected by that finding. — Coren (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be helpful if we amended the case by motion to better reflect the intent that the blacklist is intended for spam links, not for links that are subject to other editorial disputes such as reliability? --Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (3)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Tilman

I have edited almost no articles on scientology for over a year (I all but stopped after August 2007), but have still been topic-banned. This is like a scarlet letter which is while I'd like to have the ban lifted, even if I am not currently editing on this. My only "crime" was that I edited on Barbara Schwarz while at the same time being in a dispute with her on the usenet, in 2006, so this is three years old. I have never been blocked because of this.

I can't access my actual edits on Barbara Schwarz, so I can't defend myself there (especially the accusation that I was told of a CoI and kept editing), but I know that I take great care to use a "neutral" language when on wikipedia. Although a scientology critic, I have always been careful to respect WP:NPOV when editing, i.e. to avoid using inflammatory language. This is why I have been blocked only once in 2006 for two hours because of a 3RR mistake.

Amusingly, because the topic ban also applies to the discussion pages of scientology related articles, I am also prohibited on talking about Tilman Hausherr or Xenu's Link Sleuth, despite being an obvious expert on these. (I am aware that editing on the articles is of course always a no-no)

According to this article [1] citing one "Dan Rosenthal", there is only one of the banned critics who hasn't been reinstated, so this is me... --Tilman (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Touretzky

Despite what Dan Rosenthal said in the LA Times article Tilman cites, I've seen no evidence that any banned users have been reinstated. Both Antaeus Feldspar and I have appealed our bans, as Tilman is doing now. No progress to report yet. -- Touretzky (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

The statement in question was made by the LA Times, not me. I did not state to them anything of the sort. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as far as I'm aware, only 2 people were banned, one of which was already banned: John254, and Justallofthem. So I'm not entirely sure what this complaint is about. Topic-banning is not the same thing as a site-ban. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't clear from the above, I am Dan. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, have you asked them to print a correction which will tell the readers what you really told them (assuming that you did communicate with them at all)? --Tilman (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

"Topic-banning is not the same thing as a site-ban." They only differ in scope. Both of them send the blatant message: "This user is so wholly destructive and intractable that only brute force will curb their disruption." This claim becomes hard to support if we look at, for instance, Special:Contributions/Touretzky: it is hard to see how an editor who had not made any edits at all for over thirteen months prior to the start of the case represented such a threat of disruption that it justified such a drastic and stigmatizing response. This was not an isolated fluke; Touretzky is not the only such editor whose record shows over a year of inactivity, whether on the topic of Scientology or on all topics, before being abruptly labeled an imminent threat to Wikipedia whose purported disruption could only be neutralized with brute-force action. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

Tilman, I notice you haven't done much editing in the past year. A word of advice. Take some articles in a topic other than Scientology to Good Article or better, Featured Article status during the next six months or so. That will show that you're intentions here are to build an encyclopedia. Then, nicely and politely, request that the topic ban be lifted. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not a writer, especially not in the english language, so I'm not good/fast enough in writing long texts. My main edit activity here were always small, sourced improvements. The constructive and cooperative culture that was fun in the beginning stopped a few years ago, which is why working for wikipedia is no longer something I'd spend hours on. If I'd really be so hot on editing the scientology topics, I'd used this solution [2][3] long ago instead of arguing :-) --Tilman (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Notified

Question by jc37

Due to this case, User:Alansohn received a restriction.

In the time since then, though he apparently has done good work in vandal patrol, and elsewhere, he simply hasn't followed the restriction. And though he hasn't been blocked (or even warned) for "every" violation, this section at least lists blocks related to these issues.

I therefore have a few questions:

The first is whether the 1 year restriction was to restart at the occurrence of each block (something I've seen done in other arbcom cases).

The second is to ask: if it is determined that User:alansohn is not following the restriction, what would/should be the next course of action (if any)?

The third is (if the answer to my first question is "no"), does the committee feel that the 1 year restriction should be lifted at this time?

I feel that these are timely questions since, in roughly 2 weeks, it will be one year since the closure of the case.

Thank you in advance for clarification on this. - jc37 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alansohn

A year was mandated and a year will end in two weeks. Now Jc37 appears to be trying to maintain this "Footnoted Quotes" beyond what was determined and agreed upon. In the past 12 months, I have made somewhere around 150,000 edits (I haven't counted), added tens of thousands of references to a few thousand articles, expanded articles for every one of the 566 municipalities and 120 state legislators in New Jersey and almost all of its school districts and high schools (I think I've missed a few), written from scratch over 300 DYK articles (the most of any Wikipedia editor) and been one of the most prolific vandal fighters in my spare time.

Enough is enough. While I still maintain deep concerns regarding the manner in which the original decision was reached, I've done my time and that time is over. I look forward to the end of these restrictions, after which Jc37 will be free to use whatever legitimate administrative measures are necessary to deal with any future perceived problems -- real or imagined -- once these "editing restrictions" are over. Only now they will have to be weighed against real standards with proper oversight, and applied under the same standards that should be applied to all editors with (hopefully) a small measure of the consistency that has been absent over the past year.

That I have been able to accomplish so much in this past year given the undue harshness of these restrictions is a small miracle. I look forward to accomplishing that much more in the next year without the claim of "editing restrictions" being waved as a threat. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • (Caveat: I was inactive when this case was decided.) In general, sitebans and blocks are restarted when violations (typically socking) are detected. However, the clock on other types of sanctions, such as the civility restriction imposed in this case, typically is not automatically reset upon a violation. I very strongly urge that Alansohn render this discussion a moot issue by adhering to a reasonable level of civility both before or after the one-year period expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments. With the expiry of the extension, nothing is stopping an administrator from using the restriction, and violations thereof, in considering whether a block is appropriate and if so of what length. If problems are persistent, the community is also free to (re)impose an appropriate restriction. Reiterating NYB, if Alansohn adheres to a decent level of civility, this will be entirely moot. --Vassyana (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per both preceding. Alansohn, please contact us if there are any concerns of baiting (which can happen with editors who have been subject to civility sanctions). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Newyorkbrad and Vassyana. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Appeals process

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by FT2

With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertent? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.

(If this has been addressed elsewhere or doesn't need a clarification, please just fix any instructions which need to show it, and remove this request.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Rootology

I was meaning to ask why we don't just toss up a nice pretty and small "global" header template (the sort that goes dead center, up top) on each of these main RFAR pages so that people just know where to go for what? rootology (C)(T) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I suppose there should be another section of this page for "appeals", although honestly the page has become more than complicated enough already. For that matter, we should probably distinguish between an appeal from another individual or body to us ("User:X appealed his block by Admin:Y to the ArbCom") and a request that we reconsider, update, or vacate one of our own rulings, even though we have typically used the term to refer to the latter as well ("Desysopped Admin:Z can seek return of the tools through a new RfA or an appeal to this Committee"). In any event, unless and until someone confuses me by reformatting the page again, a user with an appeal can file it under new cases or clarifications or amendments or whatever; we will see it in any event. But given that the result of a successful appeal is to change the outcome of the prior decision, I suppose that "Requests for amendment" is the most logical of the current choices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per preceding, amendment I feel is the logical and best term and place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by FT2

This is a request for a minor clarification or amendment of remedy #2 (IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology), to avoid a point of contention that is sure to arise some time soon.

The ruling states, "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."

Could the Committee clarify that this covers IP addresses reasonably believed to be owned or operated by the CoS, or that appear to be substantively used for that purpose or on their behalf, not just those where "ownership" is formally proven through an IP registrar or "operated by" is claimed (and disputed).

This guidance would be worth obtaining before any blocks start hitting the administrators' incident or arbitration enforcement noticeboards, and because it is an obvious block evasion/wikilawyering tactic (obtaining new IP addresses not visibly "owned or operated" by CoS, even "broadly interpreted", would be trivially easy).

FT2 (Talk | email) 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of need
"Or controlled" is a statement of fact (an IP is or is not "controlled or operated by the Church"). As often stated in sock cases, we don't have the ability to look through the wires, and administrators will not have it with this organization. We would have instead, usage that looks like scientology co-ordinated usage, but no visible "ownership" and some evidence tending to show possible "operation by the Church" itself.
With sockpuppetry in general we have the principle, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (Case link). As future blocks are predictable, and to avoid unnecessary issues, I ask the committee to give explicit confirmation that the same principle is intended to apply here. Ie that the following is a correct statement of the intent and interpretation of the remedy:-
  • For the purposes of dispute resolution, administrators do not have to formally prove an IP is "owned or operated by". It is sufficient that it is reasonable to believe the IP is owned or operated by CoS or its proxies, or that it is substantively used for that purpose or on their behalf.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The wording was intended to give admin and checkusers wide latitude in blocking ip addresses that are under the direct control of the CofS. IMO, the wording, "or operated by", covers the situation that you describe. Any more detailed wording could introduce more confusion not less. With additional remedies, "Account limitation, and Editors instructed, I think we have all the bases covered. As always, admins and checkusers will look at each situation on a case by case basis before they make these blocks so we can discuss anything unusual then. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, the point of the particular remedy is to specifically modify the use of ip addresses owned and directly controlled by the CofS, so if you are referring to a more general coordinated editing of the topic by people acting on the direction of the CofS, then it would not apply. But as I pointed out, other remedies and our policies would apply to all editor of the Scientology topic. In every instance, an admin and/or checkusers will be looking at the particular details and making a decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or operated by" includes IPs controlled but not directly owned by COFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intent of the remedy is that if an IP is under the control of the CoS, then is should be blocked. The "or operated by" makes it clear that direct ownership is not necessary— as is often the case when IP blocks are concerned, administrator and checkuser interpretation and determination is expected. — Coren (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (1)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Touretzky

I haven't logged into my Wikipedia account in quite a while, so I was not aware that I had been dragged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology until a friend told me today that I'd been topic banned. I wish to protest this ban as unjustified.

A look at my edit history shows that I have not edited any Scientology-related article since 2007. (Been busy doing other things.) I contributed a few typo/grammar fixes in 2008, but none of those articles were about Scientology. It is unreasonable to topic ban me in 2009 when I've never received any kind of reprimand or caution about any edits I've made, and have done nothing wrong, even when I was editing Scientology articles back in 2007.

Second, the ruling criticizes me for editing the article on Applied Scholastics and for including a link to my StudyTech.org web site. The StudyTech.org web site is the primary reference for anyone who wants a critical look at the subject. That is why the current Applied Scholastics article, which I have not touched since 2007, continues to link to StudyTech.org; any article that did not link to this resource would be incomplete. I don't think it's Wikpedia policy that only non-experts can edit an article. And I contest the claim that my edits are self-interested. People write about what they know. Being a Scientology critic shouldn't prohibit me from editing Scientology-related articles any more than being a Scientologist would.

Being topic banned is humiliating and, in my case, unjustified. I'd like to request that this ban be rescinded.

Response to Shutterbug
The studytech.org web site contains an extensive archive of newspaper and magazine articles about Applied Scholastics, its affiliated organizations, and study technology, going back as far as 1980. It contains a well-researched article by Chris Owen about the organizational structure of Applied Scholastics and its relationship to the Church of Scientology. It contains a sentence-by-sentence comparison of the supposedly secular Basic Study Manual (an Applied Scholastics publication) with Scientology religious scripture. It also contains a roughly 15,000 word critical essay by me and Chris Owen with extensive quotations and citations. There is no other resource anywhere on the web, including Applied Scholastics' own web sites, that contains comparable information. Studytech.org is listed as recommended further reading by John T. Hatfield, Benjamin J. Hubbard, and James A. Santucci in their book An Educator's Classroom Guide to America's Religious Beliefs and Practices (2007): see p. 98. (You can "look inside this book" at Amazon.com.) What Shutterbug attempts to dismiss as a "personal web site" is in fact the primary critical resource on the web for learning about study technology and Applied Scholastics. Wikipedia articles must be NPOV, but there is no requirement that external links point only to sites that are NPOV. So if it's impermissible to include this site in the list of external links at the end of a Wikipedia article, I'd like to know why, because I really don't get it. -- Touretzky (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd response to Shutterbug
WP:RS applies to sources used to support statements in Wikipedia articles; it does not apply to the external links section at the end of an article. Sites that WP:RS would frown upon (e.g., wikis, personal web pages) are common in external links sections. For example, the article on Kirstie Alley includes an external link to a Star Trek wiki. In any case, topic banning me in May 2009 for having added an external link back in October 2007 is absurd. -- Touretzky (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Thatcher
Thank you for the pointer to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links. I understand the policy and will adhere to it. However, the language about "convenience links" that you are referring to now, in May 2009, did not exist in the version that was current in October 2007. Furthermore, this policy refers to links used in citations. What I'm being taken to task for is adding an external link, so the relevant policy would seem to be WP:EL. I believe I can make a good case for an external link to studytech.org in accordance with the current version of WP:EL, but the place to do that would be the article's Talk page, which I am now banned from editing. My purpose here is to argue that topic banning a user who has never received any sort of caution from any Wikipedia admin, for a link they added in good faith 19 months ago, is not a reasonable way to instruct someone in the finer points of Wikipedia editorial policy. Telling them to do penance for six months (in Scientology this would be called an amends project) and then apply to have the ban lifted does not make this action any more reasonable. -- Touretzky (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to RogerDavies
Your comments are phrased in general language, which suggests that you are addressing the broader proposals of Durova and Zippy rather than the specifics of my case. So let me describe how things look from where I'm sitting. I was happily living my life, making occasional typo and grammar fixes to Wikipedia articles having nothing to do with Scientology, and completely oblivious to the bedlam you describe. For reasons that are still unclear to me, my name got dragged into an arbitration request I knew nothing about, and I ended up topic banned. Then the story hit Slashdot. Now I have people emailing me saying "I see you got banned from Wikipedia." Today I received my first journalist inquiry about the ArbCom decision. What am I to tell this person?
I have never been uncivil to anyone on Wikipedia, despite extreme provocation. In June 2005 a Wikipedia biography page was created for me by a Scientologist that was so outrageously defamatory that Jimbo Wales himself became involved, urging me to take no action and let the Wikipedia admins deal with the issue. I did as he asked. This was before WP:BLP even existed. (In fact, I think this was one of the incidents that reinforced the need for WP:BLP.) A lot has changed since 2005.
I've spent the last few days reacquainting myself with Wikipedia, and I've noticed two significant changes. First, the Scientology articles are far more meticulously sourced today than back when I was an active contributor. I take this as evidence of constructive tension between critics and believers, despite what other shenanigans might also be taking place between some of these people. Second, Wikipedia policies are significantly more detailed and comprehensive than when I first arrived on the scene. At this point, although I would like to be able to contribute again to Scientology articles, and also to the Robotics Portal, I would welcome the assistance of a mentor who can provide some guidance, because it's clear that the penalties for error can be severe, and there is no statute of limitations. -- Touretzky (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cool Hand Luke
I'm sorry to see that, like Roger Davies, you have chosen to respond in general terms rather than address the specifics of my case. Here is the flaw in the "rehabilitation" argument. Suppose I go off and do penance as you suggest, working on articles in some other areas where I have expertise, incurring no warnings or sanctions of any kind and receiving no mentoring from anyone. Who is to say that in 2011 I won't be publicly banned from editing articles in the Robotics Portal because some link I added in good faith in 2009 is later deemed to violate WP:COI, or some deletion I viewed as vandalism and reverted is deemed 2 years later to be edit warring? You might say, "This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We would not take such a harsh and unreasonable action in 2011." I would hope that's true, but that is precisely what is happening in 2009 based on edits I made in good faith in 2007. Is this really the precedent the ArbComm intends everyone to live by now? -- Touretzky (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shutterbug

Comment: Reading the appeal of Touretzky I find that he did not get it. His personal websites are not an authoritative source for anything but his own state of mind and him pushing them into Wikipedia articles is exactly what he was topic-banned for. Shutterbug (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DT: Dave, read up on Wikipedia policy, will you? Quiz: Copies of secondary sources hosted on private attack websites. Allowed per WP:RS or not? Shutterbug (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Perhaps this motion should be expanded to include other editors who had not edited the topic for a very long time before the case began. Intending this equally toward both 'sides': it's about principle, not ideology. Wikipedia remedies are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. It is unlikely that any sanctions proposal against an editor who hadn't touched a topic since 2007 would have passed--or even been taken seriously--if similar proposals had gone up at AN or ANI. That applies generally, not simply to long term disputes.

When you go for the nuclear option, you may get Chernobyl. Indiscriminate and/or punitive sanctions could make the topic radioactive. Looking ahead, I worry about the long term impact upon this topic if the uninvolved Wikipedians whose assistance the Committee seeks to encourage become fearful to make the attempt. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Touretzky's humble request for mentorship ought not to be necessary; he hasn't edited the topic in a year and a half. It is prejudicial to suggest that his topic ban is preventative or rehabilitative: this editor has no need of rehabilitation for having added an external link to an article in compliance with policy as it existed at the time, nor need he be prevented from complying with policy in future. In good faith I would like to suppose that the Committee's decision to sanction him was the result of overwork and carelessness, that such an eminently capable editor was placed under severe sanction on the basis of hardly any evidence at all, yet it would be remiss at this stage if I failed to note the suspicion that he was sanctioned not for his actions but for his putative beliefs. It is with deep regret that I repeat the declaration, due to the capricious actions of this year's Arbitration Committee in several cases, I have ceased accepting new mentorships. The Committee owes this man an apology for the real world damage it has done to his reputation, and the Committee owes the community a pledge that it will not repeat the gross error in judgment upon other volunteers. DurovaCharge! 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the arbitrators who have posted: ArbCom routinely holds editors responsible not only for their intentions but also for the consequences of their actions. The Committee must hold itself to the same standard. Regardless of intentions, the decision in this case caused international headlines. It also topic banned a scientist from a major university who edits under his real name, and sanctioned him upon a frivolous rationale. He initiated this request along with a query what to do about a journalist who had asked him for a statement. At the very least, an arbitrator ought to have informed him of the existence of ComCom promptly. A day and a half later, when the sparseness of reply caused worries, I did so. No arbitrator had. It was hardly an expectation, when I used the word 'milquetoast' to describe earlier decisions, that such indiscriminate action would result, or such poor followup where timeliness is essential. Please set this right. DurovaCharge! 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Cool Hand Luke: the editor I mentor is well known to have been a former edit warrior. Early in the case I asked the Committee to disregard his behavior from two years ago and weigh him in terms of more recent actions. Afterward many more names were added, and when it became apparent that evidence against Steve Dufour from two years ago was being weighed I asked the Committee to extend the same courtesy to Steve Dufour and to all the named parties. Steve Dufour had been partisan on the opposite side of the dispute. So it's a very odd to see the word wikilawyering being applied. Wasn't I ethically obligated to be consistent about this principle? And isn't it normal at this website to refrain from sanctioning over very old behaviors that have not been repeated in over a year? DurovaCharge! 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zippy

Moved comments from other sections to new single section. KnightLago (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: I've read the arbitration decision and User:Touretzky's appeal. Given the evidence that Touretzky presents, it seems reasonable to reconsider the topic ban on this editor. If there were activity in the past year in support of this ban, or examples of egregiously disruptive behavior, I would think otherwise, but I fail to see such evidence. --Zippy (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to and agreement with Durova: This is also what I am thinking. Let's say we're dealing with a user who makes edits in good faith, whether they get the ethos of the Wikipedia or not. This is pretty common, and the normal action is to guide the user, warn them if the behavior continues, and block as a last resort, but even then, block only for a short amount of time (a day, a week).

In this case, we have a user, Touretzky, who made edits that the arbitration committee has decided are not in keeping with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. The edits were over a year ago, and Touretzky says he received no warning at the time, yet did not create any more events deemed worthy of arbitration attention or warning or sanction.

Whether the user gets it or not is missing the point. I believe that bringing down the ban-hammer on a user as step one, or even step n, is premature if they a) have not received guidance from the community at the time the edit occurred, and b) have not continued to make edits that go against the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.

In this case, Touretzky is engaged in a dialog with the greater Wikipedia community, something that can be achieved with less than a topic ban. I would rather that we assume good faith and allow this user to be free of the mark of sanction so long as his present behavior is within the norms of so many other editors who have yet to fully grok Wikipedia. By topic banning, I believe we are more likely to lose an editor than we are to bring them up to speed. --Zippy (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Roger Davies: No doubt this topic is a particularly polarizing one, I think everyone would agree with that. My question is more about the right way to bring users into the fold. For a user's first experience with official guidance to be not a warning, but a topic ban, seems heavy-handed considering the actions by the user occurred in 2007. As the user has not in recent memory been engaged in any behavior worth objection, and has made constructive edits on other topics in the meantime, why not talk to the user rather than sanction them?

While I accept that your intent with a topic ban is to rehabilitate the user, I suspect that in many cases, if a user were faced with a topic ban as the first action against them, we would be unlikely to see that user return. And so I would like us to assume good faith here, not in a wikilawyerly way, but as a reasonable path, considering the user has not done anything that anyone has objected to for over a year. --Zippy (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cool Hand Luke: With all respect to the difficulty the arbitration committee faces with the edits on the topic of Scientology, Touretzky engaged in no objectionable edits for one and a half years prior to the arbitration committee's decision. Why ask for more evidence of good behavior when you have at least 18 months of it? --Zippy (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Shutterbug is a named party in the arbitration comittee's decision. --Zippy (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher

The object of the decision is to require single-purpose editors on Scientology topics, or on Scientology aspects of other topics (such as [4] to demonstrate a commitment to Wikipedia's model of cooperative editing by editing other topics for a while; the ban may be appealed after 6 months. Regarding studytech.org, it is not a reliable source as such. Where it contains newspaper articles and other reliable content, the appropriate practice is to cite the original source, even if it is not online and can not be made an active link. There are several reasons for this, primarily a) a site hosting a copy of someone else's copyrighted news article may be infringing on the original copyright and Wikipedia frowns on contributory infringement, and b) there is a risk that partisan archives may not be completely accurate. For more information see the "Convenience links" section of Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Thatcher 12:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

"... Lest there be any doubt, there are the editors who, over the years, have got the topic into the toxic mess it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors nor influenced their ability to behave correctly. If any have moved on from Scientology, a Scientology topic ban will not hurt them. If they have not moved on, six months pottering around Wikipedia learning how policy works in other less-contentious areas will do them no harm. There is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans; they are preventative and rehabilitive." Roger Davies, at [5]

I am afraid that these assertions from Roger Davies cause me to wonder anew just how well Roger, and the other members of the Arbitration Committee, actually understand the effects of the decision they have handed down. The statement that the topic-bans are "preventative and rehabilitive," and that "there is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans," is so startling that I can only think that Roger has in mind only what the intent behind the topic-bans was, and has perhaps not realized that the effect of the ArbCom's punishment is substantially different from what it might have envisioned or intended.

The ArbCom may choose to believe that it is not bound by the precedents of previous cases, but it cannot ignore those precedents. With that in mind, let's look at a case from the past, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. It does not take much examination of the evidence to get a sense of Terryeo; I actually suspect that a reader can get a fairly strong sense from just one section of the evidence, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Evidence presented by Antaeus Feldspar, showing just one point on which Terryeo argued endlessly and tendentiously, accusing other editors of inserting opinion and original research, accusing other editors of lying, removing citations with false claims about the contents of the cited sources, and inserting his own opinion and original research (yes, after loudly demonizing others for allegedly doing so.) So what is my point in bringing up the case of Terryeo? Simply this: That arbitration case was called to deal with just one problem user, and after all the evidence (about 120 diffs by my count) presented to show that user's problem behavior on Scientology and Dianetics related pages, the ArbCom chose the following remedy: "Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages." (emphasis added.)

By sentencing current editors to a complete topic ban, specifically stated to exclude talk pages, the current Arbitration Committee is making the clear statement, whether it is intentional or not: all these editors are greater offenders than Terryeo. They must be, or else it would not be necessary to sentence them more harshly than Terryeo, based on less evidence.

Perhaps in a world where "what happens on Wikipedia, stays on Wikipedia," it might be true that painting these editors as offenders so severe that the ArbCom must use topic-banning as a first resort rather than last has "no element of punishment". Perhaps in a world where reputation has no effect whatsoever, or a world without Google, this drastic depiction "will not hurt them." Not in this world, however. It was not that long ago that I was on a lunch date with a lovely young lady that I had been recently introduced to, and she started the conversation, to my shock, with her observations on my past difficulties at the hands of Zordrac (talk · contribs). I was fortunate that she was able to recognize Zordrac (a.k.a. Internodeuser) as possessed of neither honesty or good judgment -- but could I have expected her to recognize that the Arbitration Committee, when it chose the drastic remedy of topic-banning, was simply trying to find a "rehabilitive" remedy? Could I have expected her, frankly, to believe such a claim, when I myself find it hard to credit? Could I expect a prospective employer, Googling me, to believe that the Arbitration Committee thought its topic-ban on me was purely "preventative"? I do not think anyone looking at my contributions, noting the complete absence of any article edits from the end of June 2007 right up to the current day, would believe that the ArbCom applied a "preventative" remedy, because quite obviously there was no reason to think there was anything to prevent.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors nor influenced their ability to behave correctly" -- I think that it might be said, quite gently, that it is not the place of the Arbitration Committee to change the deeply held beliefs of any editor, whether those beliefs be Scientology or science. Nor is it rational for any member of the ArbCom to expect editors to change their deeply held beliefs to suit the pleasures of the Arbitration Committee. Editor behavior is the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. If the Arbitration Committee wishes to influence editor behavior in a positive direction, however, I cannot think that relying purely on "the passage of time" to "influence their ability to behave correctly" is an advisable course of action. Neither is employing as a first resort, for editors made aware for the first time that their behavior is of concern to the ArbCom, remedies more severe than those used as a last resort against editors with long and blatant histories. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Cool Hand Luke

"I'm puzzled by the claim that these topic bans are punitive." Generally speaking, sanctions have one of three rationales: punitive, preventative, or rehabilitative.

With reference to any one of the multiple editors who had been completely inactive on the topic of Scientology -- or completely inactive, period -- for over a year prior to the start of the case, it really is very hard to see what sort of imminent disruption the ArbCom might have believed that they were "preventing". Did they really believe that Touretzky's complete inactivity from 27 September 2008 onward was just the prelude to some sort of disruptive return, which had to be prevented with the immediately brute-force remedy of a topic-ban?

It is even harder for any reasonable person to believe that the topic bans would have a "rehabilitative" effect. No one who has a choice chooses to "rehabilitate" unless they are given some reason to believe that there is a better place which can be theirs at the end of the process. The Arbitration Committee gave no such reason. On the contrary, by interpreting editors' records in the worst possible light (for instance, jumping to the conclusion that a large number of Scientology edits is automatically a history of POV warring, and that the only deleted contributions worth considering in an editor's record must have been to BLPs[6]), by labelling them as an imminent threat that could only be dealt with by a brute-force remedy that skipped all the "other avenues" that it is expected will be tried first, the Arbitration Committee gave all those editors reason to believe that if they stayed (or, in many cases, returned) they would be devalued and treated as criminals. What exactly the Arbitration Committee think that they provided as incentive for anyone to "rehabilitate"?

Sanctions have one of three rationales: punitive, preventative, or rehabilitative. People are referring to these topic-bans as punitive measures because of those three, only a punitive intent makes sense of what the ArbCom did. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Anynobody

The simple truth here is that any editor trying to add info to Scientology topics has three basic types of sources to use:

  • 1) Mainstream media and government (Like the LA Times, Time, the New York Times, the FBI, etc...)
  • 2) Scientology
  • 3) Scientology critics

Clearly info from Scientology and its critics has a place in our articles, but since both sides are biased more space must be reserved for mainstream sources without a bias one way or another. When drawing upon mainstream sources one can't help but notice the overall negative tone of coverage. Since neutrality, as defined in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, means including all relevant non-biased sources. If we do that with regards to Scientology articles, the negative tone in our sources will also be reflected in our articles.

If one wants to give an overall neutral tone to Scientology articles, the only way to do so would be ignoring articles with titles like; "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". I can't make a topic sound any better or worse than the sources available make it sound, in this case they make Scientology sound pretty bad. It's not Dr. Touretzky's, Antaeus Feldspar's, or my fault that our sources paint a negative picture of Scientology. Anynobody(?) 04:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Erik9

With all due respect to Roger Davies, his claim that "There is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans" is completely and blatantly incorrect. While the bans may not have been enacted with a punitive intent, they do in fact serve to punish the editors against whom they were imposed. In a variety of ways, users subject to active sanctions by the Arbitration Committee are relegated to second-class citizenship on Wikipedia - for instance, they are persona non grata at RFA; Davies' assertion that "If any have moved on from Scientology, a Scientology topic ban will not hurt them" is obviously false. For this reason, while the committee may view past conduct as the background against which current behavior is considered, it should not sanction editors except when necessary to control present disruption. If the Arbitration Committee will not reverse its decision to topic-ban users over editing that occurred in 2007 and earlier, then Jimbo Wales should. Erik9 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tilman

I notice that most of the topic-banned critics haven't edited for a long time - so they have already done what the ban is meant to do ("editing other topics for a while"). Although this sounds like a conspiracy theory, it looks to me as if the idea was to block a few inactive critics to avoid a lawsuit by scientology, so to make it appear that the ban is "balanced", so that heads from "both sides" are put on pikes.

Yeah, the ban can be "appealed" after six months. Considering the way that my topic-ban was constructed in the first place (falsely labelling me a single purpose account, later corrected to a "Scientology-focused" account, then using edits on one single deleted-contrary-to-AFD article from three years ago as "evidence", but hiding the evidence-edits from the accused), I'd expect this "appeals" process to be like these parole hearings in movies, where the innocent guy is denied parole only after he admits guilt and feels "sincerly" sorry in several hearings :-) --Tilman (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recused, in accordance with my recusal from the relevant case. --Vassyana (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When this case came to us, it came with impassioned pleas to deal with the battlefield that it had become. The problems had spilled over into the noticeboards, and had neutralised their capacities to provide effective solutions. Policy was either ignored or endlessly wikilawyered to suit the agendas of the warring pro- and anti- factions. In this maelstrom, neutral editors either became radicalised and joined one or other warring faction, or were attacked and driven away by both sides. Clearly, a more robust approach than tea and milquetoast was needed.
  • The core issue is that, for many editors, Scientology is an immensely polarising topic. The editors who have been topic-banned fit squarely either into the pro- or anti- factions, or have walked in link-step with them. Lest there be any doubt, there are the editors who, over the years, have got the topic into the toxic mess it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors nor influenced their ability to behave correctly. If any have moved on from Scientology, a Scientology topic ban will not hurt them. If they have not moved on, six months pottering around Wikipedia learning how policy works in other less-contentious areas will do them no harm. There is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans; they are preventative and rehabilitive.  Roger Davies talk 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm puzzled by the claim that these topic bans are punitive. Rather, we hope to prevent the old POV wars by ensuring that the participants have reformed (as several participants have). These users may demonstrate a commitment to our project in other ways. If anything, I think not enough of these old warriors were topic banned. I would be much more interested in topic banning stragglers than overturning any of these for the wikilawyering "principle" of a statute of limitations.
    Our project is to build an encyclopedia. None of the warriors should return before they demonstrate that their swords have turned into plowshares. In the meantime, there are plenty of other fields to tend. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2

Statement by Will Beback

WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2 closed in April. One of the remedies reads:

Revert limitations
3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

There is a dispute over the exact meaning of this remedy, especially the last sentence. User:Sandstein contends that I violated it and blocked me for it, while I believe that he is misinterpreting the remedy and the relevant edits. In response to a complaint at WP:AE#Teachings of Prem Rawat by Jayen466, Sandstein blocked both myself and Pergamino.

  • My first edit: [10] This edit added a section of material.
  • A series of edits by Pergamino: [11][12][13][14] These edits altered the text I'd posted, and moved it, but did not revert my addition of the basic text.
  • My second edit: [15] This edit undid Pergamino's edits (on account of his failure to discuss them).

So I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit, and hence there was no violation of the remedy. If the intent of the committee is to prohibit repeating the same edit within a one week period, which is what some folks seem to think it says, then it should be made explicit because it does not seem to say that now. If the block did not follow the existing wording of the remedy then I request an acknowledgment that there was an error.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LessHeard vanU
There are two clauses to the remedy. The first prohibits making more than one revert in a week. LessHeard vanU seems to be proposing that it says no reverts are permitted. However the enforcement actually concerned the more complicated second clause, which says, I believe, that if an edit is reverted it may not be restored for a week. I contend that my original edit was only altered, not reverted, and that this situation is not covered by the language of the remedy.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to AGK
It wrong to say that I reverted instead of discussing. On the contrary, I reverted the changes because the editor who made them didn't explain them or even leave accurate edit summaries. The talk page shows ample discussion on my part. Commenting without ascertainng the facts first isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate AGK's clarification and accept his apology.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Roger Davies
Roger writes: "It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited."
The remedy says: "No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period,..."
So regarding the first clause, there seems to be a disagreement over whether it's "1RR" or "0RR". However this clarification principally concerns the second clause, which is more difficult to interpret. It seems to say that you may not restore your edit if someone reverts it. It does not seem to say that if someone changes your work you may not revert it. That's the crux of this clarification request.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Newyorkbrad
I have edited numerous contentious issues on Wikipedia for nearly five years, and have made over 90,000 edits, without ever having been blocked before. On the same day that I was blocked an article I wrote related to this topic was promoted to featured status. I sincerely believed at the time I made the edit in question that I was following the applicable remedy. If this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it then I suggest that it is not clearly written, and that it will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders, which in turn may lead to the topic once again becoming dominated by single purpose editors. That would be counterproductive to the overall intent of the ArbCom's decision in this case.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sandstein/FloNight
This is intended as a clarification of the remedy, but that necessarily involves discussing whether the remedy was interpreted correctly by Sandstein. Sandstein eventually said that the blocks were to enforce the second clause of the remedy: "...if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." (emphasis added) It's my contention that the changes I made were not reverted. I request that Sandstein or FloNight please provide the diffs showing the supposed revert. If there was no revert then either Sandstein misinterpreted the remedy, or the remedy does not mean what it says and so it should be reworded to reflect the actual intent of the committee.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Pergamino himself claims that he did not revert my changes. Rather, he says below that he "made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit".   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note
I've e-mailed the committee requesting that this discussion be suspended pending the resolution of a related matter.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

If content is added by party A which is then "altered" in part or whole by party B and party A then removes those alterations so that the content is the same as when party A added it, what other term than "reverting" applies to the actions of party A? Is Will Beback arguing that the wording only applies to the reverting of a (whole) revert? This would make the remedy comparable with WP:WHEEL - where it is only the reverting by an admin of another sysops revision of the original admin action that triggers that situation. My reading, as provided at AE, is that any edit that substantially undoes another contributors edits to a section of content to return it to the previous or original edit is a revert and not allowable until 8 days has elapsed since the first edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback; I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert"; you appear to argue that only a wholesale revert of the original edit (in this case the introduction of content) would thus mean you should not return the content (the revert noted in the remedy) within the 7 days, whereas my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Roger Davies; "Clarification" is why we are here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Newyorkbrad; Further to the above response to Roger Davies, it is because there may be good faith interpretation of remedy or decision that differs from which is intended (or understood to be that intended) that there needs to be careful application of language. This is a Wiki after all, and while the best is always the intention it may be found that better is yet to come. Against the necessary restrictions provided to diminish disruption there are the allowances that provide editors with the freedom to try to improve content within their understanding of policy. Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

This is just in case I am expected to make a statement here as an involved party. With respect to the interpretation of the remedy at issue, I do not think that I have anything to say in addition to what I have already said in the discussion threads linked to above.  Sandstein  21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

  • "Revert limitations ¶ 3.1) ... Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." [Emphasis added]
  • LessHeard vanU (21:04) states, "I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert";..."
  • Will Beback (20:05) states, "I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit..." ([16])
  • LHvU (13:07) states, "...what other term than "reverting" applies...". LHvU (21:04) states, "...my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy."


This clarification seems to turn on whether Pergamino did or did not take an action defined as a "revert" during these four edits: Pergamino 17:56, Pergamino 18:04, Pergamino 18:08, Pergamino 18:14; and also, what other term than "reverting" applies to Pergamino's four edits.

A dictionary definition of "revert" requires a return to a former condition:

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, but they don't seem to have been changes that returned WB's text to a former condition. Thus they don't seem to described by a dictionary definition of "revert".

Wikipedia Help makes a distinction between "revert" and "reword", as well as between "revert" and "modifying":

  • Help:Reverting#When to revert reads: "...if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit..."' [Emphasis added]

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, that appear to be consistent with "reword" and "modifying", which Wikipedia Help distingishes from "revert" or "reverting".

My analysis of the above facts concludes that Pergamino did not revert Will Beback's original edit, as defined by both a dictionary and Wikipedia Help. Without a revert by Pergamino, Will Beback was free to revert Pergamino's reword and modifying edits without violating WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations 3.1. Milo 03:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Newyorkbrad
I agree with LessHeard vanU's thoughtful exposition (17:59 to NYB), including "Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met." The alternative is a form of rough justice whereunder editors with fine-parsing skills, useful in locating the neutral point of view, will be chilled into avoiding topics under arbitration restrictions. In another case, section #Review of articles urged, the committee urged "...knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved..." to "...address any perceived or discovered deficiencies." A lack of commitment to progressive rewording of demonstrably misunderstandable remedies, sends a counter-message to users not previously involved: Look what happened to an editor who tried to follow the rules – stay away. Milo 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

Sandtein's block of the editors was quite correct; one simply needs to take five minutes to review the arbitration enforcement thread to evaluate so. Will Beback's complaint therefore, I suggest, is with the validity of the arbitration decision: evidently, he is contesting it because he finds it to be unfair.

It is the Committee who are responsible for hearing complaints over past cases. Jury nullification is largely absent from arbitration enforcement. In this case, Sandstein did as required: he evaluated the complaint against prior Committee decisions and acted accordingly. No blame lies with him.

As to whether the Prem Rewat decision itself is conducive to a positive editing atmosphere (as enquired by NYB below), I confess myself to be fairly unfamiliar with the subject area and therefore not confident in my ability to offer a reliable response. However, it does strike me that, in the lack of widespread complaints from editors of the subject area that the arbitration decision is proving a serious hindrance to editing, this may clarification may simply be the manifestation of an editor's frustration at being called out for resorting to reverting rather than to discussion.

AGK 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback
Generally, the response to an editor who makes an edit without offering a rationale, either in his edit summary or on the article talk page, is to open a discussion—and not to revert the change. I would concede that, practically, the situation may dictate that the appropriate response to an undiscussed change may be slightly different, but I hope you see the reasoning behind my comment. I didn't intend to dishonour your record as a quite reasonable and sensible editor, and would apologise if you felt I did. AGK 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pergamino

What Will Beback is not saying is that the initial edit he made, although it was discussed, it was not agreed upon. Actually, there were many well-argued objections for that edit, but he decided he knew better and made the edit despite the objections. I came along and made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit. Will Beback's rationale to delete what I did and put back his version again, is that I didn't discuss it first. So basically, Will Beback is applying rules in an arbitrary manner: If he adds text that was discussed but not agreed, it's OK if he does it, but if I attempt to improve upon his work, then it's "undiscussed" and can be summarily deleted (BTW, he never said what was wrong with my edits, so I was left guessing). He also claims that the rule established by the arbiters "will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders", when in fact is that by not following the rule he is doing exactly that. Furthermore, he claims that "this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it" — but me and other people told him several times that he had it wrong, and suggested to him to undo the edit so it will not be in violation of the rule, explanations that he ignored in toto. Is it too much to ask from Will BeBack to listen to his experienced peers, take it on the chin, and promise not to act like this again? Pergamino (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Recuse, obviously. AGK 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse, per previous involvement in the topic area, in accord with my recusal from the relevant arbitration case. --Vassyana (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The remedy refers to "any given changes" and uses the plural "changes" four times, apart from in the final sentence ("repeat the change"). It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited. I suppose, for the avoidance of any doubt, "the change" could be amended to "the change/s" and will support that if there's sufficient agreement from my colleagues but I'm not convinced it's necessary.  Roger Davies talk 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, I genuinely believed I had clarified my understanding of this. My take is that, as drafted, editors are prohibited from reinstating in whole or in part reverted changes within seven days of the reversion.  Roger Davies talk 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It strikes me that, rather than just finely parse the meaning of "revert" or "change" in the decision as we might if this were constitutional interpretation or biblical scholarship, an equally important question is which interpretation would best serve the purposes of the decision and the remedy, which were to allow for continued editing and improvement of the article as a part of the encyclopedia while minimizing sterile edit-warring. I'd welcome comments on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sandstein's interpretation of the the sanction. And per the related discussions at, AE and AN/I, the consensus was that the blocks were administered in a fair way. The intend of the proposal is to create an atmosphere where discussion is used to settle content disagreements instead of reverting. Hopefully overtime this will help us reach the goal of stable articles that are well sourced and written from a NPOV. I think it is too soon to judge the success of the remedies. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: How to appeal to the community

Look, if you don't want to handle an issue, say so, and help me work out how it should be taken to the community. Archiving it while several unresponded issues are still up is just disrespectful.

The case involved huge amounts of procedural issues, that, at the least, meant the case could not be decided fairly, had no previous dispute resolution, ignored the belated dispute resolution entirely, and had documented wagon-circling by the Arbcom to protect one of their own, while going on a grand fishing expedition check of every admin action I had ever made in order to find something - anything - to justify the case against me being taken long after the person in question had been unblocked. Furthermore, I can't help ut think this was all an effort to subvert the Arbcom elections, which I was running in. At the least, this deserves a promise never to allow such a thing to happen again.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdChem

I've been debating what, if anything, to say in support of Shoemaker's Holiday's request for ArbCom to do the honourable thing. I'm not going to go over in detail all the reasons why the case was fatally flawed - we all know what they are: we all know that the case was only accepted because of an ArbCom member's involvement, that that members behaviour during the case would have been sanctioned in an "ordinary" editor, and that the motivation was to make an example. We know that at least one member decided their position within hours of the case opening, and without waiting for any evidence from Shoemaker's Holiday. We know that the RfC held during the case did not support the punishment handed out. Some ArbComm members would be aware of the private evidence submitted, and the lack of communication concerning it. Collectively, this more than justifies vacating the case, but the present ArbCom has been unwilling to take that step, despite some progress in recognising the failures from the past.

So, I would like to point out some other reasons why ArbCom needs to act further on the Matthew Hoffman case. My first reason is that it is good for ArbCom. It is apparent that concerns exist over admitting that mistakes have happened and that decisions need changing. Certainly, such admissions can be used by critics to throw accusations. However, when the mistakes are ones that are evident to most onlookers already, remaining steadfast does not show strength. Truly, you will garner far more respect from standing up and saying 'yep, there was a mistake there, but we have acted to address it'. Admitting to mistakes and showing that appropriate lessons have been learned is also a powerful signal of breaking from the past. The 2008 elections demonstrated enormous discontent with the ArbCom of 2008, and the call for change and improvement was near-deafening. Tangibly showing that previous activities will not be allowed to repeat is both appropriate and wise.

The community's respect for ArbCom as an institution is dependent not only on its actions but also on the behaviour of its members and the integrity of its processes. I expect that Committee members would agree that protecting the institution of ArbCom is one of their responsibilities. Numerous actions have already been taken this year that recognise the importance of the institution. Removing former arbitrators from the mailing list, acting quickly following the revelations about Sam Blacketer, and the de-functionary-ing of Jayjg (sp?) are three examples. In this same vein, ArbCom needs to take a formal stance on Charles Matthews. His behaviour on-wiki was bad, but even worse (as I have raised elsewhere) was his misuse of confidential materials to which he had access.

Let me put this plainly: Charles Matthews, initiated the case, and was a party to it. He was recused from acting as an arbitrator, although he continued to receive case-related emails. He must have read some of these emails as he responded to my email about the case. My email indicated it was about the case in the subject line, so there is no possibility that he did not realise the topic. There is absolutely no justification I can see for his reading and responding to that email. We have no way of knowing if he responded to other emails, whether he was reading any commentary about decision making between active arbitrators (either on email or the private wiki), or whether anything he read influenced the evidence he presented or the style he chose to present it. I have no evidence of off-wiki wrong doing beyond the proof that he read my email submission. Surely the 2009 ArbCom needs to make it absolutely 100% crystal clear that arbitrators in cases where they are recused or a party are absolutely forbidden from using their privileged access to confidential case materials in any way, and may not even read such materials? I put it that this is another aspect of the case which ArbCom must address in order to protect the institution.

Having indicated some reasons why it is in ArbCom's interest to act, I'd like to try to illustrate why I think it is important to act from Shoemaker's Holiday's perspective. I have not asked him about these comments, so the thoughts and insights (if any) are mine and I am not speaking on his behalf. I was interested to read a recent comment from an ArbCom member that "nothing [ArbCom] decide[s] is meant to have any consequences in the offline world". I suggest that the original MH case was a spectacular failure in that respect, in that it had negative health consequences for Shoemaker's Holiday that were in no way justified by the issue in the case. Now, it could reasonably be argued that an ArbCom case is always a source of stress for the participants - and particularly for those who are facing potential sanctions. However, Shoemaker's Holiday's health situation would have made this off-wiki effect very much worse, and could easily make the effects linger. Rather than simply shrug off a perceived injustice ("life's like that"), it could easily become a subject of obssessive thought and a considerable burden to carry. Worse, it would be very easy for an ArbCom sanction to feed into self-doubt and a self-destructive internal monologue. Can you imagine the damage from having thoughts of being wronged and unjustly publicly humiliated (and in your real name) chasing other thoughts that you are a terrible person, that you were stripped of your tools for how bad you are, and that you must be bad for so much effort to have gone into hurting you around and around and around in your head? I don't know if that is Shoemaker's Holiday is experiencing. I do know more than enough about the condition to know it is a reasonable guess. And, I am sure that such thoughts could have been circling around (along with many others, of course) for the entire time that has passed. Vacating the case or acknowledging the flaws, the biases, and the mistakes could offer Shoemaker's Holiday relief from one of the pressures that have affected his health. The tenacity with which he has continued to pursue the case clearly demonstrate how important the issue has become for him. If you aren't willing to act for other reasons, perhaps compassion for his sufferring is a motivation to do the honourable thing.

The final reason I wish to offer is that even with the present modification in place, Shoemaker's Holiday's wiki-reputation still carries a stain. He remains branded as an ArbCom-sanctioned editor. Some of you might feel that is only in his mind - in which case I'd refer you to the paragraph above. However, I suggest that the reputation effect of a brush with ArbCom is something that is essentially permanent. If you think of the appeals from Everyking, or the numerous ones relating to Scientology at present, you see clear indications where people are concerned with the damage a sanction can do to their reputation. It does not matter if the sanction has no practical effect remaining, the fact of being ArbCom-sanctioned is all that is required for the damage to be done. Here I also note the extra piles of reputation-darkening words that were added by Charles Matthews in the ArbCom 2008 elections. His comments that an emergency desysop (like in Archtransit's case) would have been the better solution, in retrospect. How are editors unfamiliar with the case going to look at such a suggestion? They might well infer that the case was so clear-cut that going straight to sanctioning was justified, or that some terrible damage was being done that urgently needed preventing. The reputational damage to Shoemaker's Holiday from the case was compounded by such a suggestion - and yet, as the record stands, Shoemaker's Holiday is an ArbCom-sanctioned editor who resigned under a cloud in the face of an ArbCom desysopping... and Charles Matthews is an unsanctioned and unreprimanded former arbitrator and (I think) current functionary. Is that just? Do those circumstances reflect well on ArbCom as an institution? With all that was wrong with the MH case, wouldn't there be some justice in offering to Shoemaker's Holiday the alternative label of ArbCom-exonerated editor?

Please please please do the right thing for ArbCom, for Shoemaker's Holiday, and for Wikipedia. State for the record what we know to be true. Offer the apology that is long overdue. And, demonstrate that the 2009 ArbCom is different, and will not tolerate arbitrator behaviour nor cases like Matthew Hoffman. Finally resolve this issue by vacating the case.

Thanks... EdChem (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by arbitrators

Appeals of Committee decisions may be made to Jimbo Wales. If you then want to appeal his response to someone else, you'll have to discuss the proper procedure with him personally.

As far as the substance of your comments goes: we are not able to act on your request because you have not been able to provide a consistent answer about what it is you're actually asking for. Going through your comments on this request and the last one, I can see at least eight distinct requests (or what looks to me like requests):

  1. That we declare all findings in the case, including those not about you, invalid
  2. That we rescind the restriction on your seeking adminship in the future which was left in place after the last change to the case
  3. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the case should not have been accepted
  4. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the handling of the case suffered from procedural errors
  5. That we should change the text of the case pages to be an analysis of the mistakes made during the case
  6. That we should apologize for our handling of the case
  7. That we should admit wrongdoing in regards to our handling of the case
  8. That we should promise not to repeat our handling of the case

Some of these—broadly, the latter six—are, in my opinion, reasonable requests; the first two, however, are not. I see no substantive reason to rescind our finding that Matthew Hoffman was innocent of the charges against him; and I do not believe it would be in the best interests of the project for you to seek adminship without talking to us.

Generally speaking, though, it is incumbent on you to tell us precisely what action you want us to take; please feel free to just name items off the list above, if that helps, but we're not going to come up with something on our own when there's no guarantee that it will satisfy you. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Anynobody

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Anynobody

I was topic banned in the recent second Scientology arbitration case, for stuff I did months before the first Scientology arbitration case which occurred in summer 2008.

There is something fundamentally wrong with banning me from this topic since not only was this "evidence" ignored in the first case but I also haven't violated the terms given from that case.

Reply to Coren

Accordingly, I'm uncertain what, exactly, this request is asking for. Put simply I'd like to continue editing any article I please. Banning someone from editing a topic should be a last resort, and since the arbcom didn't say I was pushing a POV in the first case I'd argue that we haven't quite reached the last resort. (If the arbcom ruled I was pushing a POV, and I continued to do the same thing, a ban would make sense. That isn't the case here.)

I totally understand that at first glance it might seem I had been ...been consistently pushing a specific point of view... Honestly though, the only POV I'm "pushing" is what's in the sources - every edit I made was as a result of what our best sources say. (Secondary sources like Time magazine and the LA Times, as well as primary sources like the US Navy.) The fact is these sources are unpopular with Scientologists and it took a great deal of time and effort to maintain them in most Scientology articles. You aren't saying I should just let editors with a positive view of Scientology remove info this easily sourced?

As regards mentioning my "harassment" of Justanother the point I am trying to make is that I disagree with the arbcom's first ruling which was affirmed in this case. Since he was banned by this arbcom for the same behavior I was trying to call attention to it is especially irritating that the same committee would affirm my attempts to solve this problem SOONER was harassment. Anynobody(?) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Wizardman and Cool Hand Luke

Gentlemen I've ALWAYS used ALL information from what we consider reliable sources. Articles about Scientology feature in depth coverage of its negative aspects. Are you saying we should ignore the bulk of what the sources say about a topic because some people don't like what it has to say? (For example a Time article called The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power obviously is going to say things Scientologists don't like, and might just make anyone citing it look anti-Scientology.)

If not, would you please explain how someone could use info like Time's, the LA Times, Wall Street Journal, or any of the other dozen or so reliable and non-biased sources without appearing to support the points in them? Anynobody(?) 02:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Other topic bans from same case

I noticed that some of the editors banned, on both sides, haven't edited for quite some time. For example CSI LA last edited in 2007 and the same goes for Orsini Why are these two being topic banned after having escaped scrutiny (or even participation) in the first arbcom case AND not made an edit since 2007?

None of the graphics I made are meant to disparage anyone or anything and directly reflect the available sources. The image of DC-8s arriving on Earth for Xenu was meant to replace an already made illustration created by modifying a photo of NASA's DC-8 in space with the word Xenu on its tail.

Lastly, this arbitration reaffirmed that I previously harassed Justanother. I submit that the whole allegation if harassing Justanother (aka Justallofthem) stems from my attempt to get a WP:RFC/U going regarding his behavior. After the last arbitration I've not had any real contact with him, and he's been banned for the same type of behavior I was trying to call attention to in the first place. WP:HA#What harassment is not says A user warning for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. I've never called for him to be banned or demanded punishment, all I asked for was a RFC when it appeared he was having similar problems with several editors through giving the community an opportunity to comment. Anynobody(?) 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shutterbug

Anynobody, this a cumulative decision based on all your "bad deeds". I am curious to see how the article develops without us. Let the clueless rule! Shutterbug (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

Either there's more to the case against Anynobody or there isn't. From only what's posted within the case pages, which isn't much, I don't know.

I looked at each "POV" diff (two) and each "disparaging" graphic (five). The diffs are fairly ordinary-looking edits, and would seem to be POV only if not reliably sourceable. The graphics are documentation of a type permitted as original research or describable primary sources. Two of the graphics would seem to be disparaging (by the editor) only if they weren't based on reliable sources. I don't know if they were or weren't based on reliable sources in the details, but in the current article, the LA Times seems to back the core issue that Anynobody was editing.

If these edits were based on reliable sources, then Anynobody must have done something notable within the article talk pages that merited the "POV" and "disparaging" charges. Did he? I don't know.

The fact-finding mentioned that prior arbitration determined that Anynobody harassed Justanother. I looked at that case, and it determined that Anynobody "complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence". Well, now that Justa* has been banned from the entire project, one might reasonably conclude that Justa* was a frequent and persistent problem under the radar. In any case, with Justa* gone, a remedy against Anynobody inclusive of that reason lacks a preventive purpose, so I suggest tagging it with a note of 'No longer relevant to a preventative remedy since Justa(names) has been site banned by another remedy of this case'.

My tentative conclusion is that there is either no substantive case against Anynobody, or it's a case that's been presented with insufficient specificity. If there is no substantive case, the topic ban and restriction should be rescinded. If there is a substantive case, please present it so Anynobody can either defend his actions, or avoid doing again whatever he supposedly did that was so bad it deserved a topic ban. Milo 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

  • This request should be archived later today, provided there are no further comments. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recused, in accord with my recusal from the relevant arbitration case. --Vassyana (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the topic ban remedies is to remove those editors whose editing has been consistently pushing a specific point of view from the problem articles entirely. It was not intended to only remove the current participants in the dispute, or to create a "power vacuum". I should point out that the restriction should not be onerous to any editor who no longer edits the topic given that it simply codifies status quo. Accordingly, I'm uncertain what, exactly, this request is asking for. — Coren (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view is that the first case was fundamentally unfair to the community for not topic banning you. Wikipedia must not be a battleground, and this topic ban is part of the package to remove past edit warriors from this field. You have no restriction with any topic in the entire human experience except for Scientology. Happy editing. Cool Hand Luke 07:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coren sums up my views. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Coren said, everyone who was pushing a specific viewpoint was topic banned, even if they haven't edited in years. To unban you would be unfair to the community and others in the case. Nothing else to say here. Wizardman 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Shutterbug

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by User:Shutterbug

I was topic banned in the Scientology arbitration (the one that is all over the media right now). The Arbitrary Committee says:

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.

Where do I find the IP addresses covered by this? Which ones exactly "are to be blocked"? Please clarify. Shutterbug (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FT2
FT2, no, this is not "equally to all users". This is for users who allegedly edit from a "Church of Scientology IP Block", which - quite inherently, I guess - would only be used by members of the Church of Scientology, whether they are new Wikipedia editors, established ones or not registered at all. It is a measure punishing a group of people solely based on their chosen religion. The media - lots of "reliable sources" - report that the "Scientologists are banned from editing Wikipedia"[17][18]. Can someone please clarify what this means in real life? What "IP Block" are we talking about here [19]? What are "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology"? Shutterbug (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: This comment was initially added in FT2's section; I have shifted it to its present position and added the "Response to FT2" formatting. Please edit only your own section. Thanks, AGK 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Roger
Roger, I might refer you to what I said in the ArbCom. Packing up and leaving is not an option. Also hiding isn't. Shutterbug (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FloNight
FloNight, thanks for the clarification. I did not follow the ArbCom much in the past weeks so I learned about your decision from the media and went to the Church to asked some questions how their internet lines are set up now, in 2009 (it was a proxy/firewall system several years ago). Well, the three locations I checked use dynamic IPs (DSL line) in one place, fixed IPs in another and the third place where I could get an answer used a proxy/firewall with a fixed IP. That's why I asked. It means who ever edits Scientology-related articles in the future will be subject of witch hunting again and keep Checkusers busy. BTW, I also checked with several staff that would know if anyone from the ArbCom, Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had contacted the Church in the course of this whole procedure. Negative, no communication at all. So the Arbcom did an "arbitration" without even inviting the participation of those who are effected by its decision. Shutterbug (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FT2
Thank you for the explanation. This unfortunately shows that you do not have insight in how the Church of Scientology works and who is doing or should be doing what there. This could have been helped by contacting them but the ArbCom chose not to, thus triggering off one of the bigger slander campaigns against the Church in years. Thanks much. As a church member I am disgusted about this project, as a Wikipedia editor ("editing is a privilege"?) I would say those Wikipedia policies better be applied, not arbitrary blocks and bans. But we will see how this develops. I keep on watching. Jay Walsh[20], in any case, did say this on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation: Blocking users or groups of computers is “the last course of action” that the arbitration committee takes after communicating with both sides involved.[21]. Shutterbug (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Durova
Propaganda by leaving out time. We have nothing to talk about. Shutterbug (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Coren
Thanks, I think that settles my question. Shutterbug (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FT2(2)
We have been over this. I consider it very immature behavior indeed not to get in touch with those who are affected by general punishments and somehow the Wikimedia Foundation, Walsh, was informed incorrectly to this extent. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia and blocking a whole group from editing does not produce better articles. Anyway, Coren summed it up and that's how it is. Thanks for your time. Shutterbug (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FT2

As a community, we tend not to provide to users forbidden to edit or restricted, a full list of "IPs they cannot edit from". As you yourself are (as you rightly say) topic banned, and also a bunch of IPs closely related to CoS editing are blocked, the question is likely (as Roger says) moot.

This isn't specific to "you". It applies equally to all users and any dispute, whose actions are such that an IP range needed to be blocked to prevent their improper activities. That is quite an extreme measure, and is not taken lightly.

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Shutterbug

It is in fact equal to all users. Any user whose actions are sufficiently disruptive, will be told eventually "sorry, you can't edit on our website". Users are also told (and have been for years):

  • If we cannot distinguish users sharing IPs, then we may treat them all as socks or co-ordinated editors, and
  • If an IP range becomes sufficiently disruptive, then we owe no favors, it will be blocked until such time as we feel it is no longer at risk of being a source of disruption.

In fact the CoS is not being "punished". Whether as an organization, or by extending facilities to its members, or both, the CoS appears to have had its computers used, for a range of disruptive editing behaviors that are not permitted here. Possibly they endorsed, facilitated, or enabled it, possibly it really was just a bunch of users they allowed onto their systems. All organizations are responsible for the usage of their computers when it impacts on others. If you run a library and your computer is used for pornography or hacking, it will be blacklisted even if you as a librarian were not doing these things. So the ranges that might be called upon for this disruption, are blocked.

In making that decision, the nature or name of the organization is not significant and unimportant in and of itself. The sole factor is that despite past cases, its IPs continue to be a persistent source of harmful editing. To save you worrying that CoS might be being picked on, note that range blocks are applied in many cases of disruption and vandalism, where they are needed to frustrate easy access by other disruptive individuals or groups.

Wikipedia editing is a privilege, not a suicide pact; persistent known "high risks", or sources of disruption, are not necessarily desirable in this encyclopedia project. If there are "good faith" users who can and have faithfully followed all of our policies every time they edit Wikipedia, then as the Committee have said, IP block exemption may be applied for by those few.

Past actions have not yet met with a substantive change for the better. We can be fairly sure CoS knew about them; it's extremely unlikely that arbcom cases and blocks wouldn't be "known" internally, that they don't track the articles on them, have no awareness of their own computers' usage over 4 years, or that in all that time not one person of any standing in 12 million members was involved in editing or got to hear about the blocks or past cases.

If CoS had been serious about not wanting to have this action imposed upon them and upon all who edit from CoS related computers, they have had the option several times to desist, or to impose conditions on those using the computers. Evidently, according to the evidence, they did not realize it was necessary to manage their computer usage, chose not to prevent the activity, or did not do so effectively. Either way this is the result, and it is a response to disruption, not a "pro/anti" anything. We would (and have) done the same to schools, libraries, and other highly disruptive ISP ranges, when these have acted as a persistent source of disruption.

As for the media, they are free to report this or call it what they like. If you want to read what it really is, then the ruling is open to reading by everyone on the planet.

FT2 (Talk | email) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (2)

Shutterbug, whatever your expectations of the internet and people's behavior on it, here at least we look for adult behavior. That includes mature understanding to all editors, that expectations exist and apply. To the extent we don't get it after warnings and dialog, we protect the project and move on. From your perspective a number of scientologists have persistently taken action that despite requests and warnings, has ultimately brought the CoS into disrepute. The Church doesn't get to play the part where they counter "it's just a few bad apples", because CoS' own equipment and IPs were used for the purpose.

I suggest that if people at CoS feel this result isn't something that they generally wanted, then they collectively have a high level of power to make it extremely clear to a wide range of adherents that it must end, here and now, and editing according to Wikipedia norms will be the only acceptable behavior endorsed to adherents due to the risk of harm. CoS officials -- global, regional or local -- between them have the power to make that statement publicly and formally, and they have the power to mean it or just mouth the words. They have the power to regulate the IPs they collectively manage or not. SoC members may show it matters to them to listen to this, or doesn't matter. (So, of course, may your opponents, but that isn't your personal concern any more.) We have taken the action we usually take to protect the project; they may now realize their error and change course, or show by inaction that it wasn't very important to their Church after all. But be assured, the personal feelings of the Church are not at issue here. What is at issue is procuring a move towards good neutral editing and appropriate conduct on this website in the scientology topics, if on no other sites on the planet.

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

Regarding Shutterbug's comments:

I did not follow the ArbCom much in the past weeks so I learned about your decision from the media... BTW, I also checked with several staff that would know if anyone from the ArbCom, Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had contacted the Church in the course of this whole procedure. Negative, no communication at all. So the Arbcom did an "arbitration" without even inviting the participation of those who are effected by its decision.

It's particularly odd to see this complaint coming from Shutterbug. Contrast it to Shutterbug's declaration on 9 December 2007 at RFAR:

I am not going to leave voluntarily and I will continue to use a) my own computer, b) public computers, c) my wireless laptop, d) computers in the Church of Scientology and any station I please.[22]

An analysis of that statement, juxtaposed against prior news coverage from 2007, has been in my evidence since December 2008.[23] Additionally, it was Shutterbug (formerly User:COFS) who was the principal subject of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS first filed in April 2007, and later the arbitration case of the same name: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS.

Evidently, for over two years this person has not held him- or herself accountable either for having failed to abide by Wikipedia's policies or for having failed to inform the organization whose reputation s/he was endangering. Over two years ago I attempted to explain to this person that Wikipedia's open edit and public history structure meant s/he was risking a much bigger public relations problem than the legitimate problem s/he was trying to fix. That caution, and remedial suggestions which followed, were met with open contempt. That reaction continued even after events proved empirically that those cautions were correct. It can hardly come as much surprise, that more than a year and a half after the Arbitration Committee passed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations, the capabilities it outlined have finally been implemented:

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.
Passed 10 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget for a moment what organization this is: if it were a county government, or a sporting goods manufacturer, or anything else, this individual's Internet access privileges would long since have been curtailed on the organizational side. Wikipedians are volunteers who can (and have) blocked editing access from any organization up to and including the United States House of Representatives.[24][25] It is entirely incidental that in this instance the organization happens to be a religion. It certainly is regrettable that things have had to go so far, and as a gesture of good faith I repeat my standing offer to nominate any Scientologist's biography for deletion upon request, if it meets the dead trees standard.[26] If Shutterbug and the Church of Scientology are willing to assume their share of responsibility for the events that led to this impasse, and if they take good faith measures toward correcting the problems that led here, then I would gladly initiate a motion to modify and/or lift the restriction. DurovaCharge! 01:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Let it be noted that I never endorsed any of the Scientology case workshop proposals to restrict the Church of Scientology from editing, and even spoke up on behalf of Scientologists' religious freedom.[27] I mentored Cirt not because of his views, but because he was willing to admit his mistakes and mend his ways. To extend a similar offer toward the other side of this case is not 'propaganda'; it is fairness. DurovaCharge! 15:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This request should be archived later today, provided there are no further comments. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As you're topic-banned, isn't this moot?  Roger Davies talk 09:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, Shutterbug, since you are topic banned this is beside the point for you. To the more general question, in order to edit the Scientology topic from internet access provided by the CofS, users are instructed to have one account that they use for all their editing on the topic (preferably this would be their one main account for all Wikipedia article editing on all topics), notify the Arbitration Committee so an IP block exemption can be given, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration. The exact ip address/ranges (given to the CofS by an internet provider) are not important for these editors to know because they may or may not change over time. The important aspect of the situation is for them to notify the Committee of their intent to edit from internet access provided by CofS so that they can get an IP block exemption. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to expound on the technical details of the implementation of this remedy. If an editor edits from CoS premises, it suffices to know that the IP addresses from which they edit may (and indeed, should) have been blocked and that an IP Block exemption will be required. There is no need to inquire preemptively since IPBE is explicitly granted on a strictly needed basis. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot for this user. Not helpful to the encyclopedia in any case. Not germane to users who may qualify for IPBE no matter what the technical details. I consider this question closed. The more interesting question is the one FT2 raises above: whether an address may be considered Scientology even if not indisputably registered as such. Cool Hand Luke 07:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=295390851"