Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Statement by Shutterbug

This ArbCom turned out to the most damaging act ever done by a WP group. Damaging for the Wikipedia project, because lies were first allowed, then pushed and forwarded, and finally cemented in a bogus "decision" to ban a whole group of people based solely on their religious beliefs. So, who's next? Shutterbug (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually they were banned for their actions on wikipedia concerning their religious beliefs. You should take care to separate the two. The right to religion isn't a right to be a dick about it. 75.159.248.153 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right and I do separate the two. Those punished by the ArbCom decision (3b) have not even edited in Wikipedia. That is what makes it discrimination. Shutterbug (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Giving people who want to contribute constructivly an exception to the topic ban is discrimination now? Besides, 3b only applies to people actually given a topic ban and has nothing to do with the blanket IP block (as I read it). Theoretically, that means that only people named in a topic ban rememdy even need to worry about 3b, not to mention the 3b isn't even punishment. Its the opposite of punishment. It specifically says (and im paraphrasing here), if you got punished then here is the way to get the punishment ended. The only way you could concider 3b punishment is if you concider "demonstrating [your] commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and [your] ability to work constructively with other editors" a punishment.198.161.174.194 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shutterbug you need to understand that what scientology belives is not what the problem is about. The problem was scientology made an arguably cordinated effort to REMOVE information about itself from the article. There was also repeated attempts that I personally witnessed made by scientology to bias and alter the article so that it was self-serving. This afront to nutrality cannot be allowed. WP did not discriminate against scientology, they punished a group of individules who were breaking the rules and that group, surprise surprise was a bunch of scientologists. From what I read about you, you are 1 of 2 things. You quite possibly may be a very intelegent and well learned individule. This would be evident from you way of argueing. An intelegent individule who is non the less caught up in scientology. OR you are just a mean of expressing a highly scrutinised and heavily prepaird statement of scientology and its feelings by means of faximilie. At first I had you pined as a mouth, but the more I think about it I think you are fully capable of understanding WHY this happend. Aaron Bongart (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I witnessed this blossoming dispute, and feel that arbitration is inevitable. Better to hear the matter now before disruption becomes more widespread. The threads at WP:AE look like miniature arbitration cases. That board is ill-suited to dealing with such complexity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Flo, the problem is deadlock. We cannot generate a consensus at WP:AE for whatever reasons, and there does not seem to be any admin willing to take action. (I'd normally step up to the plate, but as a party to the original case, I should not.) The parties should have used mediation or requests for comment to resolve content disagreements, though we cannot force them. The large amount of evidence is not "bad" per se; however, lengthy presentations are ill suited to noticeboards. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I was reading this on WP:AE yesterday and felt the best outcome was to close it as "interesting, but sparse on anything actionable." The outstanding SSP and CU requests need to be completed, and the content problems need to go back to their respective talk pages.

The content dispute has been blown way out of proportion. For context, the majority of the concerns on WP:AE are regarding "Scientology and sex", a sub-article that focuses on one aspect of Scientology, and that article recently sent to AFD by user:Justallofthem; it was closed as "keep" on November 30 (basicly a WP:SNOW). In this light, adding reported issues about sex is to be expected, and it should be expected that it will go into controversies that have arisen over time. Those who prefer that we didnt have an article about this topic are going to need to accept the community disagrees strongly. Obviously the article needs to comply with all our policies, and some of Cirts additions are questionable, but the new material was removed, and has not been restored. It is a content dispute, and a minor one at that. If the two sides are unable to find compromise, they should request a WP:3O on specific issues, file a RFC or seek mediation (When I read the AE board last night, I thought Durova had offered mediation??).

fwiw, after reading the AE thread, I started to get involved to help restore stability.[1][2]

If there are wider issues to do with the actions of user:Cirt, a credible description of the problem needs to be compiled and taken to WP:RFC/U because there is nothing provided here now, nor was there any provided at WP:AE. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Spidern

I will openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Wikipedia as a motivation to edit; in parsing the main article I found many things that I took issue with from an editorial standpoint. That being said, I am moving into some other areas of interest as well. So I ask anyone that believes that my account to be single-purposed to consider my contributions outside of Scientology-related pages.

As being discussed by the editors working on the page at the time I first arrived, one significant problem with the Scientology page was its prominent use of primary sources. So being a fairly compulsive editor, I systematically rearranged the page in an intuitive attempt to improve it, removing secondary sources along the way. The quality of Scientology-related pages for the most part seems to have been compromised with the use of primary sources, which was an issue that I was working on (and still do, on a more limited basis). It must be noted, however, that promoting the use of secondary sources in the place of primary ones does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:RS; quite to the contrary.

Now judging by the amount of effort that all of the involved editors put into WP:SCN, it sometimes becomes aggravating and counter-productive to deal with the unreasonable opposition we encounter. What we are dealing with here is not a persecution of editors due to their faith, but a situation where all available evidence suggests that individual editors closely connected with the Church of Scientology are attempting to cast it in a positive light. This is no different than employees of Microsoft editing the Windows Vista article.

As for the arbitration and eventual resolution of this matter, I ask that Arbitrators consider any prior evidence in addition to the actions taken by the parties in question which proceeded the original Arbitration ruling. Two particular edits are of interest: one from Dec 9, 2008 by 205.227.165.151 (talk) and the other occurring on May 9, 2007 by 205.227.165.244 (talk) (resolves to ws.churchofscientology.org). Both IPs are within the same class C range, which is owned by the Church of Scientology International. Historically, four more known Scientology-owned IPs performed edits almost entirely limited to Scientology-related pages, see 205.227.165.14 (talk • whois), 205.227.165.11 (talk • whois), 63.199.209.133 (talk • whois), and 63.199.209.131 (talk • whois). During January 2008, Misou (a confirmed sockpuppet on Wikipedia) was found by a checkuser on Wikinews to be using open proxies as well as IPs controlled by the Church of Scientology (Misou was subsequently banned). As recently as Oct 21, 2008, Shutterbug was banned from Wikinews for "disruptive behavior" and "Block evasion via proxies".

To conclude, I'd like to quote here a few points which were first illustrated by myself in the WP:AE thread: "Let the records show that it was found that there was indeed overlapping ip address usage belonging to a specific group of editors appearing to have a conflict of interest, who acted towards pushing a particular pov. Since those findings were announced, the pov-pushing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), assumption of bad faith, (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), and removal of reliable sources (19, 20, 21) has continued."

Response to Shrampes

To echo what GoodDamon (talk · contribs) said, SPA accounts are never truly an issue unless a COI is apparent. I make every effort possible to present my changes in a neutral way. If you believe that I am not doing so, please show me diffs which you believe to be indicative of a bias. Also, the claim that I reverted any of your edits on Dianetics is false. Furthermore, you falsely claimed that the source you removed was previously added by me, which I refuted on the talk page. ←Spidern→ 06:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Justallofthem

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun a little with presenting the evidence, it was intended to illustrate that arbitration action is clearly needed here. But I would also argue that the Misou case on Wikinews is every bit as relevant here, considering that we're dealing with the behavior of a user named as a party in this RFAR. ←Spidern→ 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by harej

What I have seen here are reports of sock puppetry, of role accounts, of biased editing, and of people yelling at each other because "the other guy" is wrong. Which is to be expected, as the subject at hand makes a perfect drama sandwich. I like my sandwiches to have fresh mozzarella.

This is a matter of editors being able to control themselves in the name of academia. I am not blaming anyone for being non-neutral, nor for being uncivil. Both things are perfectly human, but that does not make incivility and biased editing appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. That is what makes Wikipedia editing so hard. Those who have been accused/convicted of biased editing should admit to their faults and work extra hard to write in the "they're an organization that has done stuff" style; even those who think they are perfectly neutral should work extra-hard anyway, only because this is such a heated subject. I know I probably couldn't write neutrally on the matter of Scientology if I tried.

Which is what makes civil, cooperative behavior so important. Those who have seen me on IRC know that I put my feet in my mouth on a frequent occasion. That makes me an anti-example on how editors should behave while disputing encyclopedia content. (To be fair, I try to be on my best behavior when making a case for something on Wikipedia). I am calling on involved editors to take it seriously, but not personally, when accused of non-neutral editing. If you have reacted poorly in the past, try in the present now to keep your anger from Wikipedia. Punch the wall if you have to. All editors must work cooperatively for the wellness of the article, even if they disagree. This is something I take very seriously, and the ArbCom should move towards restoring an editing environment conducive to scholarly collaboration.

Inevitably, people are not going to try, and they will continue down a path of arrogance and non-cooperation. Those people should be removed from editing, whether from Scientology topics or Wikipedia as a whole. It will be painful, but Wikipedia benefits not from people who sour the environment of academia.

May I also note that the resolutions from the COFS case are pretty weak. "Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother"? No kidding!

--harej 03:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback

I urge the ArbCom to take this case. It appears to be a residue from the COFS case last year. It shows the problem with using article probation as a remedy. The ArbCom gets complex cases with extensive evidence and spends weeks to months considering the factors. Then, instead of bringing the matter to a final resolution, it tosses them back to the community. Rather than a decision by a small, cohesive committee, a probation remedy turns the unresolved disputes over to the relatively chaotic WP:AE. There, admins have a few days or a week to look at relatively little evidence and make the difficult decisions that the ArbCom didn't make when it had the chance. A recent, messy case involving civility parole is another example of what happens when problems aren't solved and are allowed to smolder along.

In this case, the unresolved issue is how to deal with single purpose, POV pushing accounts, some of which may be acting in concert. The community has made efforts to deal with the issue with proposals like Wikipedia:Tag team and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Now is a good time to find how these solutions can be brought to bear on the actual problems this project faces. Please, take the case and resolve it so it doesn't keep popping up again and again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"added parties of interest"

OK, I've just been added (after three weeks) as an "added party of interest". What does that actually mean, precisely? Do I need to monitor these pages for changes mentioning me? Is there a handy guide to where in the thousands of kilobytes of subpages the bits about me will actually be?

Suggestion: you give added "parties of interest" more of a pointer on their talk page as to what the "interest" actually is - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, particularly as it's after four months - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because material has only very recently come to light.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read the arbcom-l archives on the matter. This has a tone of "shocked, shocked!" about it - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Much as I like Captain Louis Renault, it's hardly appropriate here. It came to my attention only very recently that many of the people listed as "Internet activists" on {{Scientology and the Internet}} are actively editing Scientology articles. More generally, I have been unable to find any correspondence from ArbCom in the archives promising people with unresolvable conflicts of interest amnesty or immunity.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The names at {{Scientology and the Internet}} are Mark Bunker, Tory Christman, Tilman Hausherr, Andreas Heldal-Lund, Keith Henson, Arnaldo Lerma, Shawn Lonsdale, Karin Spaink, David S. Touretzky, and Lawrence Wollersheim. I'm not aware that any of them has been actively editing Scientology articles unless it's been in the last few months. (Perhaps Lerma, I'd have to check.) Keith Henson has edited his own article, mainly his publication list. AndroidCat (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, Tilman Hausherr does. AndroidCat (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the point here is that there is no reason why this should be limited to activity in the last few months or to the prominent Scientology critics on that particular list, which is after all but one of many. ArbCom has never investigated this aspect of POV pushing in Scientology-related articles and, on the basis that it takes two to tango, will never resolve the systemic problems with this topic until it does.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This has never been a secret. I started WP:SCN. I have advised arbcom and Jimbo extensively on how to deal with coordinated attacks from Scientology editors. This is what I mean about the hazards of the 2009 arbcom's Year Zero approach and aversion to advice from those who made the mistakes already - you really are repeating history, hitting your heads on every step on the way down - David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Whatever the original tactic was, it hasn't worked. Despite four arbitrations in four years, the topic is a battlefield and is likely to remain forever one unless drastic steps (with or without headbumping) are taken. Clearly, we need to deal effectively with Scientologists who come here to push their POV but we need equally to rein in the critics/sceptics who are actively promoting an opposing stance. The two factions feed off each other, prolong the agony, and foster further factionalism. The overall objective here is not to create a broadly hostile landscape, were sources or synthesis or original research is either accepted or rejected depending on the POV it supports, but one where this controversial subject can be treated neutrally and dispassionately. That is what Wikipedia policy is all about.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted the following statement on the main page before noticing this discussion here. I'm not sure where it's more appropriate. After reading David's comments above, I have to agree it looks kind of weird to add a whole bunch of people this late in the case. (Not that I know very much about arbitration, just that it sounds like scope creep.)

Looking over the sub-pages, the only mention of me I can find is one from *2005* where I pointed out some apparent sock-puppeting at the time between IP address editors. Just what am I supposed to be looking at? --FOo (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fubar Obfusco

Looks like a large number of contributors were added to this never-ending case just last week, including me. I'm not entirely sure if that's necessary. I don't consider myself a major contributor to the Scientology-related articles, though it's a topic I visit from time to time. I've stayed far away from edit-warring with the Church's sock puppets, but I guess I'm supposed to say something here anyhow.

I don't have a lot to contribute here, though: having looked over the various materials brought up in this case, it seems to me that the conduct of the sock crew is so blatant, and its continuity with Scientology's history of trying to shut down honest reporting about itself is so evident, that anyone who seriously considers the situation will come to a reasonable conclusion. --FOo (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

There is no indication on the main page whether this particular RFA first passed through any mediation process (with links if so) or due to the reoccurring nature of the problem, passed straight to arbitration. It should be there so that interested parties can examine the process leading up to this. AndroidCat (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See diff just prior to case opening, at WP:RFAR page: [3]. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

News article on this debate

link Grundle2600 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And congrats to Arbcom, this case made the front page of the Drudge Report. You know you've made it big when Drudge picks up the story. ;) --B (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's where I saw the link. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Google says 151 stories [4] AJUK ^Talk!! 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Spanish-speaked sources are not clear (like this,this or this). Was the Scientology baned from English Wikipedia alone, or this resolution includes Wikipedia in other languajes?--Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) 20:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Esto se refiere solamente a la Wikipedia inglesa. JN466 20:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• B3 of the NY Times, anyone? [5] –xeno^talk 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Aaron Bongart

I spent a lot of time in the scientology article, I made attempts to include information from primary sources although unknowingly, yet I am not faceing a ban. I want to talk about why this is. When somebody tells you that what you are doing is wrong or in some way un befitting of the place in which you are doing it, its probably a good idea to listen to them. There was a lot of Scientology controlled or operated accounts used to alter, remove, distort or otherwise censore information about itself particularly information that is controversial. The removal of secondary sources in an effort to get an entire range of information invalidated is wrong. The abuse or intentional manipulation of the rules and regulations in order to further a personal or be it organization enforced goal is also wrong is unethical. I am confounded by the amount of people found guilty in this arbitration who have made comments to the effect of “what did I do wrong” or “this is discrimination/Religious hate/Intolerance/etc”. I am not sure if I fully agree with what Wikipedia has done but I can say I support it because I am unable to find any failure of logic or weakness of application of said logic anywhere in the arbitrations decision. I find flaws in everything, being autistic I use that to my advantage but I can not see anything wrong with banning scientology from the topic or even related topics. It would be no different if [Insert Group Name Here] started vandalizing its own and related thread all from the same set of ips belonging to it. The irony here is that scientology prides itself on being comprised of the most ethical people on the planet. What is ethical about defacing articles? The spokespersons of scientology are making the claim that this was done due to there being horribly inaccurate information on the page. Still today anybody that puts up a video on youtube or posts on a forum mentioning lord xenu, hubbard’s more outlandish lectures or anything about the slave camps they get a S&D letter from moxon or some other legal person on behalf of the “church”. Is there not a stark similarity Scientology attempting to censor or deface content about itself posted outside the boundries of a verified and sourced document and the actions of the church inside such boundries? I do not think that by function of how scientology thinks that they will ever be capable of following the rules here. I also urge that websites and organization in a ilk situation of this at Wikipedia should consider putting restrictions on scientology and its access to said site.Aaron Bongart (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OR on shared IPs

Could it be possible that it has something to do with the filter software all parishioners have to use? It could work as a proxy, sending information to the servers, allowing them to check whether material accessed is appropriate or inappropriate. It seems more likely than astroturfing to me. 92.0.138.3 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely since this filtering software has been non-functional since Windows 98, AFAIK. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Anynobody

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

• Anynobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

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.

• Evidence 1 a diff from 02/2008
• Evidence 2 a diff from 01/2008

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Clerk notes

• Just because it confused me the first time I read it Anynobody (talk · contribs) is not the same person as A Nobody (talk · contribs). MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, in accord with my recusal from the relevant arbitration case. --Vassyana (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Coren sums up my views. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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:

• Touretzky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

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? Durova^Charge! 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Zippy

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Note

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

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 [6] 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)

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 [7]

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 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[8]), 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)

I should point out that there is in fact a fourth category. The common assumption uniting the first three is that the sanction is aimed primarily to affect the putative offender(s). Sanctions in the fourth category are those where the real priority is to affect someone else. Examples would be sanctions intended to "send a message", or to ward off accusations of bias by showing that the decision-makers are willing to punish both sides equally (whether or not both sides offended equally.) The problem with fourth-category sanctions is that they destroy trust. No one likes to be used, not even in a good cause. So once again, the sanctions don't make sense as preventative or rehabilitative, and the other possibilities that do make sense are all very bad roads to take Wikipedia down. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, in accordance with my recusal from the relevant case. --Vassyana (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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:

• FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
• "or operated by" includes IPs controlled but not directly owned by COFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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:

• Tilman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

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 [9] 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)

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)

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)

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)

In case it isn't clear from the above, I am Dan. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [10][11] long ago instead of arguing :-) --Tilman (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• To clarify the Arb's statements below (since other similar requests have been archived), all editors who have ever heavily pushed a POV in a disruptive manner were topic banned, regardless of activity. If you are not active in the area, this should not affect you, and is a moot point. Other similar requests have been declined. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Per observations made by me and my colleagues in the other similar current requests.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per Roger. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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

• People who wish to edit or discuss Scientology-related articles through a closed proxy listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies for reasons discussed in said WikiProject's project page.
• Operators of these closed proxies:
  • Celarnor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified in this edit)
  • OverlordQ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified in this edit)

Statement by Damian Yerrick

Remedy 8 ("Editors instructed") requires users "(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration". However, some Internet service providers run all users' Internet connections through a proxy. This includes or included AOL and the only ISP in Qatar (see WP:SIP). Other Internet service providers, such as all ISPs in the People's Republic of China (see WP:TOR), use other forms of connection filtering, and users of those ISPs cannot view or edit Wikipedia except through proxies. On behalf of people affected by an ISP's proxy, I request an explanation of why these people should remain topic-banned.

Statement by OverlordQ

The method currently described by the pages on WP:WOCP has not worked since CentralAuth was enabled, as such mine has never been online, nor had any users. Q ^{T C} 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Note that the preamble to the remedy 8 rulings limits them to "edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:" — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I was inactive on this case, and I may not quite grasp the technical material being discussed here, so I will defer to those of my colleagues that were active on the case, and to those who can answer the technical questions better than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I believe the purpose of this remedy is to reduce the prevalence of socking and mischief on these articles by ensuring that each editor on the pages edits from only a single account and does not use commonly used methods such as proxying to disguise editing through multiple accounts, editing despite a topic ban, etc. If there is a real issue with the remedy winding up having the effect of preventing non-problematic editors from editing these articles despite having engaged in no misconduct, then a modification of the remedy may be in order. Before doing so, I think we would want to know that the issue is real rather than theoretical, so a more detailed explanation of the affected editor(s)' situation may be helpful to us (this can be submitted via e-mail rather than on-wiki if there are privacy issues involved). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm going to state outright that I would not interpret that a proxy imposed by a normal, commercial or national ISP is "editing through a proxy configuration" by any reasonable interpretation: that remedy was directed at those who would seek to "anonymize" their editing by circumventing normal IP routing. This does, however, include usage of TOR or anonymizing proxies. — Coren ^(talk) 01:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Coren. Use of tor or anonymising proxies or other open proxies is not acceptable. Known commercial or national ISPs are not included. Risker (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad frames it well. I also agree with Coren. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad explains the "why" quite well. However most of the scenarios given are not topic banned. Here is an overview:
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies is not operational, so that appears to be a non-issue
  • private customers of ISPs like Qtel are not restricted simply because of the way their network is set up
  • editing Scientology via TOR is prohibited, however if someone can demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that they have a valid reason to edit via TOR, such as Internet censorship, we committee will review the request privately.
  John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with NYB, Risker, ect. A national ISP is fine, but anonymization is not. Cool Hand Luke 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the above arbs comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the above arbs comments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Scientology

Initiated by Anynobody(?) at 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Anynobody and Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Anynobody topic-banned and restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
  • (On other wikis and here until I created a super complicated password which I made my browser memorize, and subsequently forget when I forgot to migrate my passwords before moving to a new hard drive I edited as Anynobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) Anynobody(?) 02:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Amendment request

• I'd like to resume editing Scientology related articles (most interested in Hubbard's military service but am also interested in unrestricetd editing again). The board found that I was POV pushing in 2007 when #1 I uploaded primary source documents regarding L. Ron Hubbard's service in the Navy during WW II and #2 needlessly harassed another editor.

Statement by Anynobody

• Regarding #1: The documents were official USN records which showed Hubbard had misrepresented his naval career during the conflict and claimed awards he did not receive. Since the source is verifiable, reliable, and neutral (the USN has no agenda) I felt the records deserved inclusion. (Hubbard claimed to be a naval hero, in order to be truly NPOV the navy's side of things should be represented too.)

• Regarding #2: I'm not looking to have this changed, but I feel compelled to respond given the way the finding was written. I only mention it here because anyone looking into my part of this case will certainly notice the board's finding and might wonder about my side of the story. In my opinion the other editor was engaged more in defending his faith as a Scientologist than editing according to the rules. In a nutshell I participated in numerous discussions on WP:ANI and attempted to set up a WP:RFC/U on his behavior which was stopped by an involved administrator who said my attempts to go through with it despite their disagreement (I wanted outside comments from non-involved people) were harassment. The arbcom agreed and instructed me to stay away from him after the 2007 case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS which I thought I had abided by.

• Summary: When I was topic banned in 2009 I had become accustomed to citing almost every post I made to a Scientology article if I wanted it to actually stay in. The arbcom cited evidence from 2007, when I first started editing as being the reason for the ban. As long as I ensure that any edits I make to Hubbard's or any other Scientology article are cited by an acceptable source, and include all relevant information from them then NPOV will be maintained. So I'm asking the arbcom to let me edit those topics again.

Reply to Coren

I'm really not into edit warring and already practice a version of 1RR: If I add something sans a source which gets removed, I won't try restoring it until a good source can be found (since I don't edit as much as I used to this usually means a day or so.) I'm also not a fan of reverting edits without discussion. If I had a good source to begin with and my edit is removed without a logical reason I first add a section to the talk page explaining why my edit was valid regarding relevant policies/guidelines and then revert the article (usually trying different verbiage) noting to check talk page in the edit summary. Most people will then proceed to a discussion on the talk page where either I am convinced to remove the edit or the other editor is persuaded my original edit was ok.

• • To sum up: I totally believe 3rr is unnecessary in dealing with good faith editors, but sometimes due to confusion one revert may be constructive. Anynobody(?) 19:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Luke

Actually the docs I uploaded, were for the most part* discussed in this secondary source about Hubbard's service and his claims regarding it called Ron the War Hero. For example most of the documents I uploaded come from this page on the site about Hubbard's claimed sub kills. *An exception would be the ASW-1 form I uploaded, which was not found on the site. That was uploaded in case anyone reading Admiral Fletcher's report wondered what he meant by saying PC-815's report was not in accordance with ASW-1.

• • The graphics were simply meant to illustrate topics discussed, for example the text referred to two separate DD-214 forms listing two different sets of awards and commendations. We usually list these in articles about military personnel, for example Richard Stephen Ritchie#Awards and decorations. Thanks to Hubbard there can't be only one list, since he claimed to have earned these awards we have to mention that (even the one's which he couldn't have gotten or didn't exist.)

• • • To sum up: None of this is original research because it came from a secondary source and I'm not saying Hubbard was liar. In fact I don't remember stating anywhere in an article that Hubbard was an outright liar in those words, nor did I imply he was somehow mistaken or trying to come up with other explanations why his war claims aren't backed up by any reliable sources. Though I can't argue the existence of so many contradictions does give one that impression, but remember this isn't my original research, it comes from a secondary source backed by primary documents. Anynobody(?) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies

I'm not saying I was perfect, I certainly wouldn't add a reference like Admiral Weneker's report about Japanese subs not commerce raiding off the US coast as a response to Scientology claims that the Japanese were in the area often.

• Per CHL... CHL probably didn't realize when he wrote his reply that the primary docs he points to came from a secondary source Wikipedia was using before I even started editing: Version of this page, as edited by BTfromLA (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 21 November 2006 back when Hubbard's military career was a subsection of his article.
  Further, Wikipediatrix carried it over when she created the article specifically about his career: Version as edited by Wikipediatrix (talk | contribs) at 15:10, 25 May 2007.
  I totally understand, given the amount of work you do as an arbcom member and the usual attitude of people asking for editing rights who don't seem to think they've done anything wrong must be frustrating. Please understand I can't find anywhere where it says we can't upload primary documents referred to by (and here actually in) a secondary source being used as a reference.

• I'd also like to see considerably more activity in other areas before revisiting this. I spend a majority of my time supporting the project with graphics used on wikis all over the world, are you saying I should put more time into editing articles rather than illustrating them? Anynobody(?) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Something else to consider

Fellow Wikipedians I started editing here in January 2007 and during the few months made some mistakes based on misunderstanding our rules. (Let's call them the early 2007 errors) By the time I was involved in the first Scientology case in July 2007 I thought I had done a good job of editing within policy and put the early 2007 errors behind me. The arbcom didn't seem concerned I was still making the same editing errors: Issue addressed was unrelated to editing articles. (It's also relevant to mention I completely refrained from contacting the other editor as mandated by the arbcom in that case.) By mid 2008 I had certainly come to understand how WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:CITE work: Diff I think that's rational, bearing in mind that some use of CoS sources is necessary only to report their major assertions about him discussed in secondary sources. However CoS information which has not been in a relevant secondary source is probably unacceptable. (I should mention that I know the same standard applies to any source.)

In May 2009, citing my early 2007 errors, the arbcom topic banned me from editing Scientology topics. If the concern is that I'll go back to making the same early 2007 errors, creating WP:SYNTH, and getting involved with edit disputes I promise that is definitely not the case because I wasn't doing those things in 2009 when I was banned. (This is why I may come off as arrogant or unrepentant here, being punished for mistakes made two years earlier that have not been repeated since, is incredibly frustrating!) Anynobody(?) 00:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Was not active on this case, and sufficient numbers of those active on this case are still on the Committee, so leaving it to them to review this (i.e. staying inactive on this one, and noting it here for the purposes of any motions that might be proposed). Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Anyeverybody, would you be willing to also abide by a 1RR on Scientology-related topics? — Coren ^(talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• You seem to be defending editing which was almost textbook definition OR, particularly WP:SYN (Hubbard said this, but I have primary sources and user-created graphics to advance the position he was a liar). I'm reluctant to lift the topic ban for this reason. Cool Hand Luke 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Per CHL. I'd also like to see considerably more activity in other areas before revisiting this.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Per those above. SirFozzie (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numbering of remedies

Can the numbering or contents be fixed so that section 15.3.7 isn't remedy 8? I don't care which, but it would be nice if it were consistent. Thanks.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's avoidable (unless a manually created contents section can be created, but even then, that would be counterproductive). The remedy numbers stay identical to how they appeared on the proposed decision page so that both the proposed decision and final decision correspond. But beyond that, the idea is to avoid highlighting the proposals which did not receive enough support to be published on the final decision page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

moved from log of actions

moved by me logged out at the Library put here by me logged in

• • Due to his creation of Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology, and his activity in numerous CoS-related articles, I've asked Scott MacDonald to stop enforcing this probation.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The log of Remedies are merely that logs, Will's comment is noted and it is assumed Scott is abiding by it his suggestion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry there logs the request. It's similar to the logs of warnings or notifications given in many cases. There's no harm, and some benefit, in having it all together on one page.   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this entry as it definitely does not belong there and the last thing we want is creep - with all the potential for feuding, finger-pointing and disruptive that will likely go with it - in log content. Secondly, it is highly debatable whether Scott MacDonald is "involved" and certainly, if he is, a formal request to withdraw should not be made by a case participant. I'll notify Scott MacDonald about this discussion.  Roger ^talk 19:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not a participant in the case. Since Scott create a Scientology project, that means he's involved with the Scientology topic. Where is the best place to post requests like this?   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be misremembering. You presented evidence and workshop proposals.
Scott MacDonald's participation appears to stem from the review of articles that was requested as one of the remedies and it is difficult to see how that could possibly speak to bias on the Scientology topic.  Roger ^talk 23:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My involvement in that case was limited to presenting evidence and proposals concerning Jossi, which had nothing to do with Scientology.

Scott MacDonald's bias became evident in this topic when he created a project devoted solely to Scientology, which has been almost entirely dedicated to deleting mentions of Scientology from articles or deleting Scientology-related articles. That is a level of involvement well beyond what allows an admin to remain "uninvolved". His hounding of Cirt indicates that his involvement goes beyond his assertion that he is solely interested due to BLP enforcement.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias? Tell me, am I biased for or against Scientology? The result of wars between pro and anti Scientlogy led to the distortion of our coverage of the subject, and in particular to BLPs which were either coatrackss or seriously unduly weighted, to reflect badly on Scientology. I think arbcom had an inkling of this in passing the finding asking for review. I set up a short term initiative to review articles and particularly BLPs. I specifically sought editors with no prior Scientology editing involvement. Yes, that has identified a number of articles that don't meet our notability standards, and were possibly written for partisan reasons, some of those have been deleted as a result of consensus discussions, others have been improved. Will has fought the existence of that initiative every step of the way - his reasons I can only guess at. This application is simply another part of his resistance. It is a typical move of those involved in advocacy, when neutral editors start of appear and bring the light of the wider community into the dark corner, you try to taint them as biased and advocates of the "enemy". I've already had people off-wiki accuse me of being a Scientology plant. How come every time I start investigating an area of BLPs this tactic is used?--Scott Mac 09:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "bias" is too strong a word. But you have become involved in the topic in a non-neutral way. It's not a problem in and of itself, it's just that you're no longer an uninvolved admin.   Will Beback  talk  09:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I am neutral. If you have evidence otherwise, present it. I am an entirely uninvolved and neutral admin, doing exactly what arbcom asked people to do. You don't that - tough. If I cross a line somewhere, I've no doubt you'll be the first to hollar - but I'm not responding further to your tendentious hair-splitting.--Scott Mac 10:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider Scott as no longer an "uninvolved admin" in its usual meaning for enforcement. — Coren ^(talk) 12:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not see creating a project about Scientology, editing articles related to Scientology, and nominating them for deletion as being involved? What, then, is the threshold for an admin becoming involved in a topic?   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no involvement in Scientology controversies and no history in this subject. But I'm unwilling to have a time-wasting debate with you about the meaning of words. If I enforce any sanction (which is, as I've said, highly unlikely) and neutral editors have an issue with it, I will be appropriately advised. It is really not going to happen, so don't get your knickers in a twist.--Scott Mac 01:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith here. I have absolutely no partisan interest in Scientology, having contributed no content in that subject, and not having any intention to. Neither do I enforce arbcom restictions - I once did in a Scientology area in response to an unequivocal violation - it was entirely uncontroversial, and no one complained. So asking me to "stop" or "withdraw" from something I'm not doing seems strange. Will, who IS an involved editor, and with whom I've had a number of disagreements over his BLP editing, arrived on my talk page offering "advice" that I shouldn't do enforcement and demanding I admit to being "involved". I declined to do so. If anyone has issues with my editing I'll address them, but I'm not going to give pledges to partisans with apparent concerns over entirely unlikely hypotheticals. If any uninvolved admin believes that there is a real (and not hypothetical) danger I'm about to cross a line somewhere, I'll be happy to follow that advice. Otherwise this whole discussion seems like tendentious wikilawyering.--Scott Mac 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not think you quite qualified as "involved." That being said I moved it here because it stuck me as discussion in the "logs of Official actions taken." As it seemed to be a discussion of Scott's alleged involvement that did not involved any concrete official actions taken i move it here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, speaking as an ardent critic of Scientology (and founder of the wikiproject on the topic) I think Scott's been doing fine for neutrality and the Wikipedia way. YMMV of course - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, the question here is not neutrality but involvement. Is it possible to create a project on a topic, edit articles in that topic and nominate others for deletion, while staying uninvolved?   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed possible to do those things and not be involved. Hope that helps. Note that on the other hand despite your NOT creating a project to review articles for their neutrality you nevertheless ARE involved. Hope that helps too, because you yourself are being unhelpful in this matter. The topic would benefit from your complete removal. Or perhaps you could take a page from Scott's book, he's far more helpful in this topic area than you are. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lar, your categorical assertions don't really help much. Can you give more detail on how it's possible to create a project on a topic and get involved in deletion disputes regarding that topic, yet remain "uninvolved"? What actions beyond those would be necessary to push an admin into the "involved" category? I gather you've been discussing this matter extensively on WR among banned users and others who apparently have some animus regarding this topic and its editors, so it's possible that you're viewpoint may have been skewed a bit. In fact, WR seems closely linked to Scott's unconventional project and his involvement with the topic. As for my own editing, that's not really the issue here but if I've made any unhelpful edits I'd be happy to here about them on my talk page.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wooooo, chuck some mud about and hope is sticks somewhere. Will, seriously, no one cares. There are a bunch of folk here with very different perspectives and all of them think this is a non-issue. Now, have you a problem with any of the content editing, or are you going to keep throwing up vexatious process technicalities to throw people off looking at Scientology content? I've no idea what your game is, but it is becoming tiresome.--Scott Mac 01:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Will: Scott's scrupulously neutral here. You're not. He's not involved. You are. The project exists to review the material and return it closer to NPOV. You don't seem to think that's a good idea, since you've done everything you can to sabotage it. Hope that helps. Begone from the topic area. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no "mudslinging" in saying that an admin is involved in a topic. What I do see is a lot of assumptions of bad faith with no basis in fact. I have never done anything to "sabotage" Scott's unconventional Scientology project. All I tried to do was get it converted into a conventional project. I think it's a bit much for someone who hangs around on WR posting to threads about Scientology that include personal attacks on WP editors and admins to judge the neutrality of admins here, or do make uncivil pronouncements like "begone" and demand that I avoid a topic in which I've had perhaps less involvement that Scott.

There's been no response to the core question: how involved can an admin be before they're "involved", and how does creating a project, editing articles, getting into content disputes, and nominating articles for deletion allow one to stay uninvolved. If anyone can answer that without resorting to personal attacks I'm still interested in hearing it.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because the question is pointless and no one cares. The point of "uninvolved" is not to hamstring neutral admins, it is to prevent partisans using arbcom remedies as weapons. What you are doing is trying to use it as a weapon in your campaign against my involvement in the field. I've already said I rarely enforce arbcom remedies, have no intention of, and it is unlikely that's about to change. So there's little point in getting a "ruling" on a hypothetical quesiton that has no interest other than to you. If, perchance, I do enforce a remedy (which really isn't likely to happen) and it is controversial (other than to partisans) then we can address the quesiton then. But, I'm really not dim or trollish enough to go stirring controversy in an area of enforcement I don't really involve myself with. In light of that, it simply looks like no one thinks your question worth answering.--Scott Mac 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Amendment request: Scientology (Jayen466)

Initiated by JN466 10:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amendment 1

• Request lifting of Rick Ross topic ban ("Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.")

Statement by Jayen466

Since there is currently a fashion for this, I think I ought to apply myself. In the WP:ARBSCI case in 2009, almost exactly three years ago, I was placed under a topic ban "from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined". This was largely the result of concerns over my fall 2008 edit-warring at the Ross BLP with a Wikipedia admin (since desysopped, topic-banned and community-banned), and the BLP subject's personal objection to my editing his biography.

Remedy 3B of ARBSCI provides that:

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

The current situation is that:

• Since the arbitration case, I have reviewed at least a couple of dozen featured article candidates at FAC. I have received multiple barnstars for my FAC work, among them one from User:ChrisO in October 2009, who thanked me for my "outstanding work in organising and resolving citation issues in the Inner German border article", demonstrating our ability to work constructively together to create featured content. (He also received a barnstar from me for his quite extraordinary, and lovingly crafted article.) Closer to this topic area, I received a barnstar from User:Ohconfucius, thanking me for my help in bringing Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to Featured Article status. For my work reviewing FACs related to German history, User:Auntieruth55 gave me a barnstar thanking me for my "incredible ability to find the minutest minutiae, and for suggestions on Cologne War, Unification of Germany, Hermann Detzner, and others."

• As for my own editing, since the ARBSCI case I have brought Scientology in Germany to GA status, and shepherded the article through a successful GA Review presided over by User:SilkTork, at the end of which the article retained its GA status.

• I have written two featured articles in other topic areas, The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman and Siege of Godesberg (the latter co-written and co-nominated with Auntieruth55).

• I have written about 25 DYKs since ARBSCI, listed on my user page; a good proportion of them about religious scholars.

• In September 2010, I was awarded an Imperial Triple Crown by User:Casliber, for my contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC.

• I am well aware of BLP policy, and indeed have successfully proposed and/or contributed a number of refinements to Wikipedia's BLP policy over the years (WP:BLPCAT, No eventualism, discouraging contributions from individuals in a significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article, etc.).

• I have acquired a modest reputation as a defender of BLPs against malicious editing, acknowledged by a few barnstars to that effect, and have written a number of related essays (WP:ADAM, WP:Hazing (described as "Brilliant" by Jimbo Wales, one of the founders of our project), and WP:NPSK).

• Indeed, in acknowledgment of my efforts, I recently received a barnstar from Jimbo, stating that This explanation of BLP policy is one of the best I have seen. You have it exactly right. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

• I understand that given Mr Ross's feelings and anxieties about me, as someone once affiliated with a group against which he campaigned vigorously, it would be quite inappropriate for me to ever edit his BLP again.

• I have not made a single edit to his biography's talk page since the conclusion of ARBSCI, even though the talk page notice placed by Mailer Diablo at the conclusion of the case would have allowed me to do so ( "Whilst the user is not prohibited from discussing or proposing changes to the article, on this talk page, they may not edit the article itself.").

• I have no interest whatsoever in contributing to that article or its talk page at any time in the future.

• I have never been blocked for edit-warring or any other reason.

• I have never edited with any other account than this one.

• The edits that resulted in the Ross topic ban were made in 2008, and the restriction served its purpose long ago. Its only role now is for it to be brought up against me as some kind of black mark. The risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil, and I therefore ask the arbitrators to be so kind as to lift the restriction.

@Roger: I have no intention of returning to the topic area ("articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined"). Given that we submitted arbitration evidence about each other, I would not want him editing my biography, if I had one, and he is surely entitled to the same peace of mind. Regards. --JN466 08:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, FWIW, I understand I was an idiot then, and I am sorry. In fact, I owe Ross an apology. Re-reading some of the article versions I defended in 2008 is a cringeworthy experience. JN466 07:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

What I wrote about Prioryman also applies to Jayen466; he is one the best editors we have on Wikipedia. There may have been grounds to impose some restrictions in the past, but to keep them in force given his record is not justified. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so when we impose a topic ban, we are actually making the judgement that the editor in question is so much worse than a randomly selected person from the World's population, that you need to restrict that editor.

Even if we only focus on the past problems involving Jayen466 and Prioryman in the Scientology topic area, one can also argue that because they have been exposed to these problems in the past, they have become better editors as a result of that today. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I would recommend against removing restrictions from JN, who was a principal in a veritable holy war against User:Cirt. The latter wound up being desysopped and we lost one of the best closers at AfD, while JN walked away with a "tsk tsk." Cirt's activity on this topic strikes me as being an underlying cause of this battle — a mini-POV war, if you will. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan

User:Jayen should get a Wikipedia retainer for getting rid (helping to catalog and draw attention to the policy violations of) User:Cirt a violator of the project of the highest order (the worst I have seen in three years) that after WP:BLP restrictions here has simply moved to create BLP violating content on wikinews. As for Cirt's AFD prowess - he used to close ten a minute with one word closes, nothing special there. - this reply is in response to Carrite's comment, although what this request has to do with User:Cirt is really beyond me.Youreallycan 11:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I regret that, to my own shame, I had in the past "stood up" for Cirt on some issues of disagreement between him and JN. We all know the ultimate outcome there. I also acknowledge that the subject himself, Rick Ross, has been a bit of a controversial one. But JN is one of the best writers and editors I think we have, and this is a subject of interest to him, as it is, to a perhaps lesser degree, to me and others. I believe we would all be better off with as many very good editors like him (not so much me) involved in all articles as possible. Also, I am very heartened by some of JN's own comments above, which indicate that he would now act very differently in controversial matters. I think/hope that I have become a bit more neutral over the years, and I believe from my interactions with him JN certainly has. I can see no reason not to have the ban lifted. Worst comes to worst, the page could be placed under discretionary sanctions, which probably isn't that bad of an idea for most controversial subjects around here. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

I come from a similar place as John Carter, above, though I don't believe I was ever really involved with the case. My rather infrequent interactions with JN have benefited greatly from my gradual withdrawal from those entrenchments, and I have a much better opinion of this editor than I did before, and a more correct one, I believe. I think restrictions should be lifted. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements but in principle I doubt the value of retaining this ancient restriction, especially when discretionary sanctions are available to deal with any fresh issues. I note what Carrite has said but I don't think keeping rdestrictions in place on Jayen466 as a quid pro quo for his Cirt-related activity is either particularly fair or relevant. I do though have a question for Jayen466. He says "the risk of problem recurrence in the article is nil". Does that mean he has plans to return to the Ross topic but has mended his ways or that he has no intention of returning to edit there?  Roger Davies ^talk 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, Jayen, noted thanks.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think I disagree with Roger here. But, before going to formally oppose, I will await further statements. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed with JClemens... this smacks to me more of "I must clear the black mark against my name" and not as much "I've learned better and won't do it again, and here's why I won't do it again" SirFozzie (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment "I don't like being under a topic ban" is not a good reason for removing a topic ban. If anything, it's an argument against removing it. Better arguments include "I learned and know better now" and "I've run into a situation where this sanction is preventing me from improving the encyclopedia". In this case, both the first and second arguments are made, but my impression is that the first is the actual reason for this request. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the age of the sanction and the editor's forthright acknowledgement of the now-antiquated issue, I support the removal of the topic ban, noting that any potential future problems can and will be dealt with if they arise. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• There is something odd about a request to lift a topic ban on an article that one has "no interest whatsoever in contributing to ... at any time in the future", but, as with A Quest For Knowledge, I don't see that in itself as a reason to decline lifting the ban. The request is perhaps over egged, including the names of two Committee members plus Jimbo, but, again, that is no reason to decline. What counts is that Jayen466 has recognised the faults that led to the ban, and has evidence of good editing since the ban was imposed. The Cirt and Jayen466 case has been mentioned, and Jayen was criticised in that for his conduct toward another editor, but he was not criticised for his editing, so while there may be some concerns regarding Jayen, they are not in relation to the subject of this request. I support lifting the topic ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Legacy restrictions are demeaning, and I see no benefit from retaining this sanction. As my colleagues note, any new problems can be resolved rather elegantly with standard enforcement of the standing discretionary sanctions. I am minded to grant this appeal. AGK [•] 10:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that this restriction can reasonably be lifted at this point, and I've proposed a motion to that effect below. Kirill ^[talk] 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion (Jayen466)

1) The restriction imposed on Jayen466 (talk · contribs) by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case ("Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted.

Support

1. Proposed per discussion above. Kirill ^[talk] 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Okay with me.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Discretionary sanctions are sufficient. Risker (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Risker (I'm saying that a lot this morning. Being a few timezones west and all...) Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Per Risker. Courcelles 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Per evidence of good behaviour, contributions, awareness of past issues, and the right attitude toward Wikipedia. Discretionary sanctions should not be needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Per Risker et al. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
10. With the same thinking as Risker and SilkTork, AGK [•] 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Motion on Scientology discretionary sanctions

To replace the customised Scientology discretionary topic bans with standard discretionary sanctions:

Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. This brings the Scientology discretionary sanctions into line with others, and enables the relaxation of existing restrictions,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. AGK [•] 10:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^[talk] 12:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Seems to be one of, if not the last, of the non-standardised sanctions. Courcelles 14:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Risker (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

General discussion

Just noting here that there is a long boilerplate on most articles in this topic area (see Talk:Bare-faced Messiah for an example). Does this need to be updated? Prioryman (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only once this passes. It will make the boilerplate significantly shorter.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. The boilerplate appears to be part of Template:WikiProject Scientology, FYI. Prioryman (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Scientology (Prioryman)

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Prioryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amendment 1

• Request lifting of binding voluntary restrictions

Statement by Prioryman

Note to arbitrators: I have separated this out as a separate request for your consideration in addition to the ARBCC appeal above. The discussion there has got unduly lengthy and has confused the two cases; the two matters really need to be considered on their own merits. Please address my ARBCC appeal above, and this ARBSCI appeal below, as independent appeals.

In the WP:ARBSCI case in 2009 I agreed to a set of binding voluntary restrictions. These were that within the topic area (i) I limit my edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) I make no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) I refrain from sysop action of whatever nature. The findings against me concerned conduct as a sysop, which is no longer relevant as I no longer exercise that function, and errors in the sourcing of articles. I acknowledged error at the time and voluntarily proposed the restrictions under which I currently operate.

The case came about due to concerns about COI editing and role accounts [12]. I was not involved in those issues and was only added to the case at a very late stage. There was no suggestion at the time that I was involved in any ongoing issues; all of the findings against me related to a small number of historical edits, the most recent of which had been made a year before the case and the oldest of which went back all the way to August 2005, over four years before the case.

Remedy 3B of the case provides that:

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

The current situation is that:

• Since the case I have brought two articles in the topic area, Sara Northrup Hollister and Military career of L. Ron Hubbard up to GA standard. In other topic areas, I have created four more FAs, two more GAs and over 60 DYKs. My editing has been entirely uncontroversial and widely praised, earning 16 barnstars in the last 18 months alone.
• My current involvement in the ARBSCI topic area is negligible and is limited only to minor maintenance (vandalism reversion etc) of articles that I've written. My editing in the topic area in the last three years has been entirely unproblematic and has not resulted in any disputes with any other editors in the topic area.
• I inadvertently breached the restrictions with a couple of minor edits in July 2010 to articles that I did not know were covered by the topic area. This was resolved without further action in discussions by email with arbitrators on 13 and 14 August 2010.
• The issues raised in the original case are ancient history now - the most recent diffs relate to edits made five years ago, and the oldest relate to edits seven years ago. I submit that this is more than long enough for a reconsideration to be due.
• Although I have not conflicted with any editors in the topic area, the ARBSCI sanctions have been (ab)used by individuals associated with Wikipedia Review to snipe at me repeatedly and make unsubstantiated false claims about my editing. I deeply regret that although I asked at the outset of this appeal for topic-banned or interaction-banned editors to observe their restrictions on participating in this process, this has not been respected and has resulted in unnecessary controversy. As Roger Davies has rightly said, the ARBSCI sanctions are now "more trouble and more drama-provoking than they're worth".
• The BLP findings against me in this case relate to two articles: Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted in December 2007, 18 months before the ARBSCI case) and two edits to Tom Cruise made in September 2006 and December 2008. That is the entirety of it. Even going by the findings, it's 3½ years since any of my BLP edits in the topic area have been deemed faulty. At the time of the case there were no ongoing BLP issues of any sort.
• Since I created this account I have edited multiple BLPs using reliable sources with no controversy whatsoever, including those in sensitive topic areas; example include Niall Ó Donnghaile (Northern Ireland), Edward Davenport (fraudster) (crime), Viktor Bout (crime), Penny Marshall (journalist) and Maggie O'Kane (Balkans) (and note the BLP enforcements here and here). I've collaborated successfully with multiple editors, including Jimbo himself, on BLPs. Jimbo highlighted and praised my contributions to Edward Davenport (fraudster) in this comment.
• There has not been a single dispute about the quality, neutrality or sourcing of any of my contributions to the topic area since the case.
• I'm not involved in any off-wiki activism related to the topic area, nor have I been for a very long time (in fact since well before the case).

The sanctions are no longer necessary for the following reasons:

• I have more than demonstrated my commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and my ability to work constructively with other editors in this topic area over the last three years. I've also demonstrated an ability to edit positively on BLPs.
• The restrictions have become actively counter-productive and are hindering my efforts to improve the topic area. (I remind the Committee that the restrictions were specifically intended to focus me on improvement work.) There has been no dispute whatsoever about the quality of the content that I've contributed, but the sanctions themselves have become the focus of controversy. As mentioned above, individuals associated with Wikipedia Review have used them as a pretext to wikilawyer and snipe at me. If the Committee wants to reduce controversy, the best way to do this is by lifting the restrictions and so remove that pretext.
• There's no reason to believe that lifting these restrictions will cause problems. Nor is there any reason why the existing discretionary sanctions should not be sufficient in future.
• It also makes no sense to continue sanctions related to very old edits when there is no ongoing problem with my involvement in the topic area, and there is no suggestion from anyone that the problems which led to the sanctions are either continuing or have been repeated since May 2009.

I would also like the Committee to note that the restrictions were voluntarily proposed by myself, and I request that I be given credit for this. I therefore ask for the restrictions to be lifted.

I'd like to remind editors topic-banned under ARBSCI or banned from interacting with me that they aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

I would advise against lifting the ARBSCI BLP restriction at this time. I would like to see a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first. No objection to lifting the remainder of the restriction. --JN466 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Similar to what I wrote about Jayen466's request, the restrictions should be lifted for Prioryman also in this case. The entire BLP topic area has come under much stricter oversight than just a few years ago, and this system also works quite smoothly. And I don't think Prioryman will behave as a troublemaker in this area, given his record in the BLP area outside this particular topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan

− I oppose lifting of this users Scientology arbitration restrictions - The user is one of the twenty notable people attacking Scientology - I strongly oppose his reintegration to the BLP sector in this topic - non WP:BLP I would not object to - I would prefer him to be honest and connect himself to the Helatrobus account. - Youreallycan 04:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Another editor writing above hopes to see "a substantial history of even-handed, neutral editing in generic articles first". I think that's exactly what we *do* see at this point, and I would support lifting the restrictions -- this is clearly a productive and intelligent editor, an asset to the project. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment: these sanctions should probably go now as they are open to misunderstanding/wiki-lawyering and have themselves become a source of contention. This defeats the purpose of having them. I note that discretionary sanctions are in place for the topic, which means that clearer and/or more comprehensive sanctions could be imposed if problems occur.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree strenuously with Roger and think lifting the sanctions would do more harm than good. SirFozzie (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Given that this individual sanction is superseded by standard ARBSCI discretionary sanctions, I am minded for that reason alone to grant this appeal. AGK [•] 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• As in the Climate change case, I think the available discretionary sanctions are sufficient to allow the older restriction to be lifted, and will propose a motion to that effect below. Kirill ^[talk] 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Scientology (Prioryman)

1) The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.

Support

1. Proposed per discussion above. Kirill ^[talk] 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Sure,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. I believe the discretionary sanctions are sufficient in this case. Risker (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Per Risker. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Willing to go long now that admins have usable discretionary sanctions in this topic (including the ability to reimpose this BLP area ban). Like the ARBCC one, though, Prioryman, I don't expect you'll get a lot of rope if old problems return, though I don't expect them to. Courcelles 17:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
7. AGK [•] 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
8. As with Risker. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While I'm probably going to be out voted, my concerns about how Prioryman deals with drama (even that not of his own makng) does not give me the necessary confidence to support this request. Considering that Prioryman was restricted in two areas under his prior account, I do not think that "discretionary sanctions are sufficient" in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   The disc. sanctions here are not the standard ones, and only give admins the binary option to topic ban for 3 months. If that was brought into line, I'd be willing to let this restriction elapse, but not while admins have so limited options available to them. Courcelles 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, you're right. I'll propose replacing them with the standard ones shortly,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Motion to update the Scientology discretionary sanctions now posted,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   Indented now that that motion is passing. Courcelles 17:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

   With the same thinking as Courcelles. AGK [•] 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Switched to support, now that the "Motion on Scientology discretionary sanctions" has carried. AGK [•] 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs)

Initiated by Lyncs (talk) at 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

see User talk:Lyncs/archive1

Suspension of site ban: User:Justanother / User:Justallofthem

Your indefinite site ban is suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and compliance with the following restrictions:

Single account limitation

You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason. You may rename that account provided (i) you immediately notify the committee of the rename; (ii) the redirects from the prior account name remain in place; and (iii) you display a link to the previous account name on your user page.

Interaction ban Cirt

i) You may neither communicate with nor comment upon or make reference to either directly or indirectly to User:Cirt or their contributions on any page in the English Wikipedia. You may not edit Cirt's talk or user pages though you may, within reason, comment within other pages providing your comments do not relate directly or indirectly to Cirt or their edits. The sole exception to the interaction ban is that you may respond civilly on matters explicitly pertaining to you raised by Cirt or any other editor in any dispute resolution or enforcement context.

ii) Should you violate the letter or spirit of the restrictions above, you may be blocked without prior warning via the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard: on the first occasion for up to one week; on the second occasion for up to one month; and on the third occasion for up to three months. Appeal of any blocks is to the Arbitration Committee.

Topic banned from Scientology

You are indefinitely topic-banned from Scientology on the standard terms outlined here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lyncs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Would someone viewing this please be so kind as to inform Cirt; I am not able to under the terms of the reinstatement. Thanks --Lyncs (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Cirt notified. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment 1

• Remove all account restrictions based on over one year of good behavior.

Statement by Lyncs

I was conditionally reinstated well over one year ago with the comment at the time that I could ask to have the restrictions lifted following some period of good behavior. I believe that statement was in an email from an arbitrator and can try to find it if needed.

It is now well over one year and I think that I have evidenced my good behavior and good intentions. I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future. I would prefer to 1) have access to a subject, Scientology, that I am extremely conversant with and 2) not have any live mines that I might inadvertently step onto vis-a-vis interaction bans or the like.

It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and it is currently not my intention to edit Scientology articles but I do not think there is any need to bar me from either at this point. If I do edit in Scientology (which could happen) or interact with Cirt (which is unlikely), I would still be bound by the rules and norms of Wikipedia with the added factor that I will be subject to certain scrutiny so I think it is not inappropiate to grant this request. Thank you.

1. Response to Newyorkbrad: Lifting the one account restriction is the least of my concerns and if that is a deciding factor or a factor of concern then I have no problem continuing editing solely from this account. --Lyncs (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Response to AGK: I could make argument on the merits of the original sanctions and possible injustices but I am not interesting in rehashing that nor, I imagine, is the committee. The fact that I have been back for well over one year and have not had any problems is indicative of the fact that I am not into causing problems. That is an important point. Troublemakers cause trouble. They do not stop because they are now excluded from one area or another. They make trouble where they are. That is not what I am about.

On second thought, I will say one thing of a general nature related to my sanctions. When I started editing here, I edited the Scientology articles as that was something I had been involved with for many years. If you are familiar with that territory prior to the arbitration, the Scientology articles were a battleground of anti-Scientology zealots warring with Scientology zealots with the antis well in control of the situation. But it was noisy nonetheless. I arrived as a non-zealot Scientologist just trying to add some balance and the benefit of my knowledge. While there were and are plenty of non-zealot folks that do not think highly of Scientology, few seemed to accept that there could be a Scientologist that was a not a zealot. To most, especially the antis, all Scientologists were programmed, brainwashed, and agents of the evil OSA. But that is how zealots see things. I made many thousands of edits. My edits were never much of an issue. What was the issue was that I screamed pretty loudly when getting stuck with pins. I think that the project is wiser now on the subject of Scientology. I hope it is wiser on the subject of wiki-bullying in general.

I could discretely canvass my wiki-friends and ask them to speak for me but I am not going to do that. They are, of course, welcome to speak on my behalf if they care to; I am just not going around asking anyone to do so.

I think the fact that no-one feels strongly enough about my request to come over here and object says something also. I think the fact that it is so quiet here speaks for my request, not against it.

In other words, I present the case that my request is almost a non-issue and I am simply looking for the sanctions to be lifted as "time served" with a warning to watch my step in the future or as appropriate. --Lyncs (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Response to Roger Davies: All due respect, but I am not sure what more persuasive argument I can make regarding the two and third issues.

I think the fact that three years have elapsed since the end of the Scientology case and I have had next to zero interaction with Cirt and exhibited zero inclination to harass him in any manner should, IMO, be all the argument I need make. What more can I say? I have already stated that "it is not my intention to interact with Cirt". It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and certainly not my intention to cause him grief. I just do not feel that, based on my evidenced lack of intention to harass him, I need have concern about violating a sanction were our paths to cross in some innocuous fashion. Let me put it a bit more strongly; it is my intention to avoid crossing paths with Cirt where possible and to keep things civil if circumstance puts us on the same page.

Regarding the one account restriction, as I state above, that one I can live with but, again based on good behavior, I also would be fine with having it lifted and simply being reinstated in full. --Lyncs (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

4. Response to "Statement by Cirt": I think it is appropriate to respond to Cirt's points seeing as he posted them as arguments against my request. If the committee feels this is not appropriate then this edit can be undone. I do not think that his arguments against my request are compelling as outlined below:

1. The reason I was blocked in January 2011 and unblocked in February 2011 is because, when I requested reinstatement in January 2011, I voluntarily admitted that I had some months previously evaded my site ban. The Lyncs account was then blocked pending the outcome of my request. I know that such evasion is a serious breach and I have apologized for it to at least one user [13]. I do not know if I have apologized to the community as a whole but I will do that now. I apologize for evading my ban. I do want to mention that I made a total of one mainspace edit under the ban. One [14]. I did not like socking and that is not who I am. I asked for and received reinstatement. This point is a known issue.

2. I think it was my right to remove notices referring to me as a banned user as I was not longer a banned user. The Justa... accounts were never inappropriate socks. They were my main and known accounts. How could they be socks? This whole socking thing was blown way out of proportion and is a bit of a sore point with me. I will expand on that a bit later. I very briefly tried socking, I don't like it.

3. Cirt seems to be making some distinction between my old accounts that I can no longer use as a condition of my reinstatement and me as a user? Not sure I agree with that. I am the user. I used a number of accounts. I was banned. Now I am not banned. My other accounts are not "banned" separate from me. I just cannot use them. I was asked to choose which account I wanted to use going forward. I picked Lyncs. I could have picked one of my older, known, accounts. This sort of stuff actually speaks to why I would like all the sanctions lifted as "time served". I would like to be able to go forward without clouds of this sort.

4. Yes, I have wiki-friends and, yes, I communicate with them. I do not understand why the association of my friend with the arb is important. As regards the quoted comment, as I state in my opening statement here, "I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future."

5 and 6: See above.

7: I stated that I may want to edit the Scientology articles though, if at all, likely in the same gnomish fashion I am currently editing. I have some ideas for aticles (not Scientology-related) and may pursue those ideas in the coming year. I do not see myself interacting with Cirt, I just do not want a sword hanging over my head on that point.

8: Again, how is a known account a sockpuppet? This account, Lyncs, was briefly a sockpuppet. My Alfadog account for quite some time was simply an undisclosed alternate account as permitted by the then-current rules. It was not a sockpuppet, if by that term we mean something used improperly and in violation of the then-policy on alternate accounts. I was making an attempt to create a identity separate from my known "Scientologist" identity. I inadvertantly made one single edit in the Scientology topic without realizing I was still logged in as Alfadog. I also made a few innocuous edits while under a block. That was inappropriate. So that is the extent of my "socking", maybe six mainspace edits, only one in a hot area. That is why this whole "sockmaster" thing is a sore point with me. That and being raked over the coals over it.

Thank you. --Lyncs (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I took a quick look at Lyncs' 100 most recent article space edits. The edits seem to be fine, but they go back quite far (Aug 2011) and aren't incredibly substantial so there isn't a lot of history to examine. NW (Talk) 03:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

I've been informed by Arbitration Clerk AlexandrDmitri that I may respond to this request, diff.

I have to strongly oppose this request by Lyncs (talk · contribs), for several reasons.

1. Lyncs (talk · contribs) was blocked in January 2011 for "block evasion", and unblocked in February 2011.
2. May 2011 = Lyncs chose to remove ban and sock templates from userpages of his (still blocked) sockpuppets, Justallofthem, Justanother, Justahulk, and Alfadog. He also removed himself from the list of banned users.
3. This is contrary to the terms of his site ban. His other accounts were not unblocked. The siteban was never lifted from the Justallofthem account listed at List of banned users. In fact, the original message posted to Lyncs stated, "You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason." Therefore, removing the sock tags from all these user pages and the notice that the Justallofthem account is (still) sitebanned was and is inappropriate behavior, and indicative of a lack of change in behavior from that which got him sitebanned.
4. In communication with another party from the ArbCom case that got him sitebanned, diff, Lyncs admits he is "not doing much editing."
5. Since the unblock on the Lyncs account, he has made less than 200 total edits to Wikipedia.
6. It doesn't appear that the user has successfully made any quality improvements to any articles (FA, GA, etc.) since being unblocked, that would be a demonstration of willingness to work collaboratively outside the prior topic.
7. Lyncs states in his request statement that it's not his intention to interact with me, or to edit on the topic banned topic. Therefore, I'm not seeing a need here or positive good done by lifting these restrictions.
8. Further, the edits (above) by the Lyncs account post-unblock show an attachment to the prior blocked sockpuppet accounts. This indicates the restriction to one account is still necessary in this case.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I count as a friend of Lyncs' (Justanother), which should be kept in mind when reading the following. But I guess not many people remember this stuff, so after some hesitation I decided to weigh in all the same.

Lyncs doesn't edit much, no. It's chilling to be under restrictions that express so much distrust in one's good will. His continued interest in Wikipedia is evidenced by his remaining a gnomish editor throughout this long period. To me it seems reasonable to believe him when he states that he doesn't harbour any intentions to interact with Cirt or — at present — to edit Scientology articles. I'd be really, really surprised if he even wanted to have anything to do with Cirt. This is not the place to criticise Cirt, but since the 2011 ArbCom desysopped him, the long-time campaign of his protector (who has left Wikipedia, so there's no reason to name her here) to discredit Justanother as an evil machiavellian harasser of the paragon Cirt has perhaps lost some credibility. This ANI thread from 2008, an attempt to get Justanother community banned, is a particularly egregious example. I'm happy to note that the community ban process has been cleaned up some since then. (My criticism of how it worked on this occasion is here, right at the end, in case you can't face reading the whole. It's a very colourful thread, though, especially the.. uh.. different culture evinced in the input from the two Wikinews editors.)

If Lyncs should return to Scientology on a large scale, and/or in a questionable manner, it would surely be easy to reinstate the restrictions. I suggest all the restrictions be removed (unless everybody including Lyncs is happy with the restriction to one account), perhaps with phrasing that provides for quick and simple reinstatement of them, if required. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

• Addition: comment on the proposed motion. There were three sanctions; two of them have been proposed for voting. But Lyncs has also requested for the interaction ban with Cirt to be vacated, on the argument that it's not needed; that he doesn't want to interact with Cirt and will avoid doing so, stating that "it is my intention to avoid crossing paths with Cirt where possible and to keep things civil if circumstance puts us on the same page". However, Lyncs is unhappy about having to feel continued "concern about violating a sanction were our paths to cross in some innocuous fashion". I'd be concerned too, if it was me; we all know how differently such things can be interpreted by different admins. Cirt's only argument for opposing lifting this ban is the same as Lyncs' argument for lifting it: that it's not needed, therefore lifting it wouldn't do any "positive good". (If I'm reading his reasoning right.) In my opinion unnecessary restrictions are not so neutral that they might as well be left in place; they're depressing and dispiriting. Yet lifting the interaction ban hasn't even been proposed for voting. Is that omission intentional? Bishonen | talk 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

With respect to Bishonen above, the topical and interpersonal disputes are in a separate league to the issue of inappropriate use of multiple accounts - the Community has always (to this day) expressed strong views on this issue, given how serious a breach of trust it is. A relevant question, I think, is what caused or tempted the user to the inappropriate use of multiple accounts - did it start off during a dispute in the topic (or with Cirt), did it start off as a matter of generality, or was it well-intentioned conduct that was inadvertantly disruptive (which has now been clarified and remedied)? Unless it is the latter, or this is a case where a single account restriction was completely unwarranted, I would not be comfortable with lending support to the removal of a single account restriction (even with a discretionary sanctions regime). If it did start off during a dispute in a topic or with an user, and that user has subsequently demonstrated there are no issues with his editing in that topic or with that user, then I would agree about the chilling effect - but we are not even at that point yet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved JoshuaZ

I'm not at all sure why anyone thinks there's a need to remove the interaction ban. That seems to be doing its job quite well, and we have no evidence here that the user's behavior has improved in any substantial way. Even more strongly, I see no reason to remove the ban on scientology edits. We're dealing with someone who made a single purpose account to POV push and launch a "campaign"(ArbCom's word) against Cirt. [15] (I strongly suggest that people review that finding of fact and the evidence in the case). That was the finding of fact. So far, we've seen no reason to think that the user even is willing to say that maybe his actions were wrong or against policy. We have no reason to think he isn't going to go back to his usual disruption of Scientology articles. By all means let him edit, and let him do so far away from Cirt and far away from Scientology. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I believe the clerks are preparing to close these motions, with only the first carrying (and the second and third being unsuccessful, as arithmetically impossible). AGK [•] 10:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Question to Lyncs: Does your request include termination of the one-account restriction? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements from the community that what Lyncs believes is appropriately acceptable behavior is indeed so perceived by the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• The argument to end the unban restrictions is not compelling, and given the absence of discretionary sanctions for this topic I am therefore reluctant to allow Lyncs' (Justallofthem) appeal. However, I too will await statements by the community (if any are to come) before adjudging. AGK [•] 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Standard discretionary sanctions apply to this topic. I am therefore minded to vacate the existing sanctions, even with the appellant's limited edits this year. A motion to this effect could be proposed if my colleagues are of the same mind. AGK [•] 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have to admit the lack of contributions to base the solving of past issues concerns me greatly. If I had to vote now, it would be to decline, but waiting for more comments first. SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline for now: ask again when you've made substantially more edits perhaps?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just reviewing this to see if we can move it forward. What Lyncs seems to be asking for is
  1. Lifting of the Scientology topic ban;
  2. Lifting of the interaction ban with Cirt (and I'd like to hear from Cirt on that one);
  3. Lifting of the one account restriction.
  The Scientology discretionary sanctions won't address all of this so I suggest that unless we hear more Lyncs persuasively addressing the two and third issues, within say, seven days, we decline.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• While I would prefer to see more editing in a range of topics, I believe that the ARBSCI discretionary sanctions would apply in this case, and would likely be sufficient. Risker (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sort of willing to let the topic ban go at this time, but not then other two restrictions. Courcelles 18:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• It is problematic that there are so few edits from which to make an assessment; however, in the absence of concerns from the community, a lifting of the Scientology topic ban seems acceptable as time has passed and we have been lifting restrictions for other editors; also, there are discretionary sanctions in place as well as the SPA remedy to deal with any improper editing. I don't see a need to lift the restriction on using one account, given the low level of activity in the single account; and lifting the interaction ban would be best done in consultation with Cirt - preferably after a period of positive editing. In conclusion, I would decline lifting the interaction ban and the one account restriction, but would not oppose lifting the topic ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Motions: Scientology (Lyncs)

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

For reference, the current restrictions on Lyncs (talk · contribs) (who previously edited as Justanother (talk · contribs) and Justallofthem (talk · contribs)) are:

Your indefinite site ban is suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and compliance with the following restrictions:

Single account limitation

You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason. You may rename that account provided (i) you immediately notify the committee of the rename; (ii) the redirects from the prior account name remain in place; and (iii) you display a link to the previous account name on your user page.

Interaction ban Cirt

i) You may neither communicate with nor comment upon or make reference to either directly or indirectly to User:Cirt or their contributions on any page in the English Wikipedia. You may not edit Cirt's talk or user pages though you may, within reason, comment within other pages providing your comments do not relate directly or indirectly to Cirt or their edits. The sole exception to the interaction ban is that you may respond civilly on matters explicitly pertaining to you raised by Cirt or any other editor in any dispute resolution or enforcement context.

ii) Should you violate the letter or spirit of the restrictions above, you may be blocked without prior warning via the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard: on the first occasion for up to one week; on the second occasion for up to one month; and on the third occasion for up to three months. Appeal of any blocks is to the Arbitration Committee.

Topic banned from Scientology

You are indefinitely topic-banned from Scientology on the standard terms outlined here.

Motion: Unbanned from Scientology (Lyncs)

Proposed:

The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from the Scientology topic—that was set down (as "Topic banned from Scientology") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated.

Support

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
2. The discretionary sanctions are enough of a "Safety net" to make this worth a shot. Would have liked to see more edits, nut it is what it is. Courcelles 00:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Courcelles. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
4. In the unlikely event there are fresh COFS probelms, DS can take care of the.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
5. In the absence of a compelling reason to continue the restriction I support this; while the meagre edits are a concern, the sanctions in place should deal with any problems. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
6. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles sums up my thoughts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Risker (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
9. With the firm reminder that the topic-ban can be reinstated through enforcement of discretionary sanctions, or by motion of this Committee, in the hopefully unlikely event this becomes necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
10. per most of the above really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. With the lack of edits, I do not have the necessary confidence to support lifting the topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Motion: To vacate single-account restriction (Lyncs)

Proposed:

The indefinite restriction of Lyncs (talk · contribs) to a single account—that was set down (as "Single account limitation") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated.

Support

Oppose

1. I view this as less significant to the wider appeal, and by his own admission so too does the appellant, but I propose this anyway in the event that there is a belief that the restriction is also no longer necessary. (I oppose because of the history of socking, but would not oppose a further amendment to remove this condition at some later time.) AGK [•] 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
2. No case for lifting this has been made. Courcelles
3. Premature to ask for this to be among the first sanctions lifted. In general, the "only one account" should be the last sanction lifted, such that the community can clearly scrutinize all legal edits from the one editor in order to assess the relaxed sanctions' effectiveness. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
4. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Agree with Courcelles - I'd be willing to relax the restriction if there was a good reason, but otherwise, prefer to keep it in place for now. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Since Lyncs isn't really pressing for this restriction to be lifted at this time (see his response to my question), I don't think this step is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• Just speaking personally, for good cause, I'd be willing to modify the restriction, say if Lyrics wanted to run a bot. But not lift it. Courcelles 15:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To vacate interaction ban (Lyncs)

Proposed:

The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from interacting with Cirt (talk · contribs)—that was set down (as "Interaction ban Cirt") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated. We expect Lyncs to abide by his voluntary agreement to recuse from interaction with Cirt except where necessary to conduct legitimate dispute-resolution, discussion, and collaboration, and remind him that any disruptive interaction with Cirt will be grounds for the interaction ban to be restored and for further sanctions to be levied. Unnecessary (and especially harassing) interaction with Cirt may also be sufficient grounds for him to be blocked by any administrator for disruptive editing, as a standard administrative action.

Support

1. Proposed, per Lyncs' request (and Bishonen's reminder, above). I missed that Lyncs has asked for the interaction ban to be vacated too. In supporting this motion, my own thinking is that I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the same problems that existed at the time of the Scientology case will exist today (if the interaction ban is removed), but of course I do expect Lyncs to understand that, if this motion carries and we end up with more of the same mistreatment of Cirt, he will be appropriately sanctioned by further amendments. AGK [•] 14:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd like to see a period of positive edits and behaviour - a proper bedding in, before lifting this restriction. As Cirt is currently restricted from the topic area this gives Lyncs a breathing space to re-establish himself. I'd be happy to revisit this request after 3 months, or whenever there is a sufficient evidence of calm interaction and consensus building with other users. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
2. At the moment, I'd prefer to just remove the topic ban, and see how things progress from there. If after a few months of removing the topic ban, all is well, we could revisit this issue. PhilKnight (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Per Phil. Courcelles 01:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Also prefer to give Lyncs the time to re-establish himself/herself as an editor. No prejudice to a future appeal in a few months of effective editing and interaction with other editors. Risker (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Phil. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Per SilkTork, PhilKnight, and Risker. And like them, I'd be willing to revisit this in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Per Phil Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

---

Request for clarification (April 2013)

Original location

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 07:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

I'd be grateful if the Committee could clarify a couple of points regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology.

• Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed, the scope of the ongoing discretionary sanctions is defined as "any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page". Could the Committee please clarify if that applies to all Scientology-related content in all namespaces (i.e. article space, templates, talk pages etc), including subsections of articles that are not wholly about Scientology?

• The project banner for WikiProject Scientology, Template:WikiProject Scientology, includes a notification, apparently added by uninvolved admins following the case, of the editing requirements linked above. As far as I can tell this was not done on behalf of the Committee but seems to have been done as a way of informing editors of the sanctions. The project banner isn't mentioned in the case. Could the Committee please clarify if the application of the sanctions is conditional on the project banner being posted on the talk page of an article that includes content related to Scientology - i.e. if there's no project banner the sanctions don't apply - or whether they apply independently of the project banner being present?

@Salvio: Thanks for the advice, but I'm simply trying to clarify the situation with the scope of the sanctions and the project banner. Thanks for doing so. Prioryman (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Based on previous statements and clarifications by the ArbCom (not related to Scientology) I would suggest that the discretionary sanctions apply to all Scientology content on Wikipedia, including templates and sections of larger articles.

Regarding the template, the key aspect of discretionary sanctions is that editors must be aware of them before they can be sanctioned under them. A notice on the talk page is a convenient way to alert people that the sanctions exist and that that article is within the scope of them. It is not the only way though, for example if you edit warred about adding significant Scientology-related content to Riverside County, California you could not successfully argue that you were not aware of the existence of DS for the topic area even if there wasn't a template on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I have already (grudgingly) conceded the point that that single passage in the article is under Arbcom's Scientology-related purview. We are discussing ways to move forward on the talk page now, regarding how to make it clear to present and future editors that that is the case, and that the list in its entirety is not under discretionary sanctions. JClemens' comment yesterday regarding granularity and mixed-element articles was insightful. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• In my opinion, EdJohnston's comment is reasonable and that is how I would interpret the restriction as well. An article about Scientology, even when not tagged with the appropriate wikiproject banner, is under sanctions. When only a section of an article deals with the topic in question, then the AE admins have to look at the content of the diffs: a user can be sanctioned if his edits are about Scientology and are deemed disruptive. Furthermore, I also think that discretionary sanctions apply to all namespaces: it would be unreasonable not to sanction an editor who is causing serious disruption during a discussion about any topic under sanctions merely because his conduct occurs in project space.

  That said, I also agree with IRWolfie- that, in the case which prompted your question, the use of discretionary sanctions would have been inappropriate: they are a tool to protect Wikipedia, not a club to beat your opponents over the head with.

  Finally, speaking as an editor and not as an Arbitrator, after an AfD, a DRV, an AE thread and a clarification request, will you please remove List of Wikipedia controversies from your watchlist and forget about it for at least a month? If there are serious problems, someone else will certainly notice; no need for you to stay there to hold the fort. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree in general with Salvia guiliano's advice. And like him, I will venture to add a comment in my individual capacity and not as an arbitrator. Mine is that it is undesirable for a mainspace article to become a forum for jousting between wikipolitical factions. List of Wikipedia controversies is not a battleground. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I too agree with the Arbitration advice given. Is there anything more that needs to be done here? NW (Talk) 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also agreeing with Salvio. Risker (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification (July 2013)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Drg55 (talk · contribs), currently blocked (notification)
• Peter cohen (talk · contribs) (notification)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) (Notification. For the purpose of editing this section, the restriction this user is subject to is vacated to the extent it applies, provided that they do not reveal any identifying information about the user whose privacy is at issue here.  Sandstein  22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC))
• Prioryman (talk · contribs) (notification)
• Editors participating in the ongoing discussion at WP:ANI#Abuse of admin powers and Violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Sandstein (notified there)

Statement by Sandstein

Recent actions I undertook to enforce the decision in the case WP:ARBSCI (the Scientology case) have given rise to an extended discussion at the ANI thread indicated above. I identify three key questions related to the case that are controversial in good faith among at least some participants to that thread:

1. Is the alleged full real name of the editor sanctioned in remedy 17 of the Scientology case private information, such that it is a violation of WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment to publish it on-wiki?
2. Is it permitted to use discretionary sanctions to prohibit users from discussing certain matters related to private information on-wiki, if the purpose of that prohibition is to reduce the risk of the unwarranted on-wiki publication of that private information?
3. Does the Committee expect that discretionary sanctions are used only in particular situations, as an exceptional measure, or as a last resort if other admin or community tools would not help, or subject to other restrictions (if yes, please codify these expectations at WP:AC/DS), or may they be used just like other admin tools whenever the policy requirements for their use per are met?

For my views on what I understand the answers to be based on my interpretation of current policies, please refer to my ANI statement. In short: 1. yes, 2. yes, 3. no.

A response by the Committee would help to mitigate the drama and (in my view) ongoing privacy breaches generated by that thread, and would also help me and others bring their conduct more in line with the Committee's expectations, to the extent necessary. As an administrator regularly working at WP:AE, I at least would appreciate being able to review and modify any current or future sanctions by me depending on this feedback.

And while you're at it, could you please indicate when (if ever) the in-progress revision of WP:AC/DS, particularly the clarification of the appeals procedure, will be forthcoming? Thanks,  Sandstein  22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for preventative measures

Considering that the two arbitrators who have commented so far share my view that publishing private identifying information about the editor at issue constitutes outing or harassment (except under special circumstances not present here), I recommend directing a clerk or other functionary to take measures the Committee deems appropriate (such as redaction, courtesy blanking, oversight, warnings or restrictions) to suppress such breaches of privacy as have already occurred in the course of the ongoing ANI thread (as I intended to prevent with my warnings and sanction), and to prevent further breaches of privacy from occurring while the Committee considers this request for clarification. In view of some of the more surprising arguments put forth at ANI, I also recommend considering to amend the case page such that the names used in it may not be used to erroneously justify future breaches of privacy.  Sandstein  06:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary conclusion

I'd like to thank the five arbitrators who have commented, and all those who have offered constructive criticism here and at ANI. Attempting to summarize the arbitrators' views with respect to what I consider the salient issues:

• Concerning question 1, arbitrators are mostly, though not all, of the view that the use of the alleged real name is likely not outing, but they agree (though to varying degrees of intensity) that the use of the real name, against Prioryman's express desire for privacy (now repeated to me by e-mail) may constitute harassment. It's not clear whether there is agreement about whether the earlier username is private, but that is of less concern in my view.

  I broadly agree with this assessment: I have now been pointed to a 2009 edit by Prioryman where they acknowledge their real name by providing a diff in which, they say, they edited a citation to their own works, and where the diff leads to a reference with the name at issue. This excludes outing in the narrow sense defined at WP:OUTING, because that policy excepts situations where "that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". But, as arbitrators have emphasized, posting the name against the editor's will except where clearly justified (in COI discussions: WP:OUTING, par. 2, third sentence), is sanctionable harassment under most circumstances in my view.

• Concerning questions 2 and 3, the views offered by Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Risker and Nuclear Warfare are not in agreement, so I can't conclude anything yet. I'd appreciate hearing the opinion of other arbitrators as well.

As to what to do now: The sanction I imposed on The Devil's Advocate does not strike me as useful or advisable any more. This is principally because it has failed to achieve its goal to prevent continued undue attention from being focused on private information. But I must also take into consideration that two arbitrators as well as relatively many apparently uninvolved editors at ANI (even after discounting those apparently motivated only by grudges unrelated to this issue) have expressed concerns about the approach taken by the sanction. For these reasons I intend to vacate this sanction.

But, in the light of the foregoing, Prioryman's expressed desire for administratively enforced protection from privacy-breaching harassment in the Scientology context still appears worthy of protection. Therefore I intend to impose a discretionary sanction prohibiting onwiki publication of alleged real names of Prioryman, except by or with permission of arbitrators, or (for the purpose of COI discussions) by or with permission of uninvolved administrators. All users who contributed to this or the ANI thread would be informed about this sanction, which would of course be appealable as usual. If there are any objections by arbitrators to this way of moving forward with this issue, I'd of course appreciate hearing them.  Sandstein  23:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano:: In my view, a reason to treat this particular editor differently vis-à-vis all the others who have disclosed their identity onwiki is that, unlike all these other editors, this editor has been, as far as I can tell, the subject of continued efforts at on- and offwiki harassment because of longtime feuds involving Scientology and Gibraltar, another DS topic. (He may well share part or all of the blame for these disputes – I don't know anything about them – but that does not change that he, like any other editor, is entitled to edit Wikipedia without being harassed.) However, if you and other arbitrators believe this proposed sanction is not proportionate, then a way to implement the case-by-case approach you envision would be to issue further discretionary sanctions warnings to the individuals whose recent conduct leads me to believe may be among those who might engage in harassing conduct in the future; this would allow targeted ex post facto discretionary sanctions.

Jayen466 (who, the Committee has found, has previously engaged in edit-warring to advance a Scientology-related agenda, and has been subject to a Committee topic ban) is mistaken to consider, below, that the information that the editor at issue may years ago have indirectly identified himself invalidates the block of Drg55, or my other admin actions. Outing is only a specialized form of harassment. The block of Drg55 and my warning and sanction remain valid for (actual or possible) harassment, whether or not it was or would also be outing in the technical sense. Additionally, any alleged conflict of interest situation does not excuse the conduct of Drg55, because Drg55 engaged in harassment in the context of an appeal of his own topic ban for his own misconduct. This is not a situation in which any conflict of interest of another editor with respect to some other article requires any discussion at all. Furthermore, what triggered this clarification request is my sanction against The Devil's Advocate, which is not a result of Drg55's actions, but of those by The Devil's Advocate.  Sandstein  15:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The underlying problem is that my offense was not that I at any point disclosed Prioryman's real name. Oversighters are free to look for themselves to confirm that my comments to Sandstein only noted Prioryman's previous account, which is identified plainly on a WP:ARBSCI section I linked to in my comment, and that Prioryman had used the previous account to restore self-published information, which is backed with public diffs on the WP:ARBSCI finding I linked to in my comment. Furthermore I linked to a community noticeboard discussion from October where it was decided that mentioning Prioryman's first and last name did not constitute outing due to numerous public disclosures on-wiki. He warned me for that initial post and apparently sanctioned me just for noting Prioryman's previous account in my response to said warning. If I had noted Prioryman's last name on either occasion then I might understand his actions, even though they would still be in error, but I find it hard to accept that I can be sanctioned just for repeating what is noted at the public arbitration page being used to support the sanction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

My statements at ANI speak for themselves and I suggest reading that entire thread. My concern isn't Prioryman, but the threat of Arb sanctions on unsuspecting editors. It seems to me that threatening a user with Arb sanctions should be the exception, used only when it is the best or only option, not a regular or "ordinary" course of action simply out of convenience. Since discretionary sanctions are a "fast track" exception to standard community policies, as defined by the Arbitration Committee, and not a community determined policy, they must be treated as such. There exists a high potential for abuse due to the limited avenues of review, which is why it seems they were designed to be used sparingly when there is a clear need, and with a higher standard of accountability. Because they are an exception to actual policies, they should be narrow in scope and used cautiously.

When an editor is threated to be blocked via an Arb sanction, and knows that no admin can review or overturn that block, and only the admin making the threat or the Arbitration Committee can review it, this is a big deal. There is nothing "ordinary" about it. Of course, that is the purpose, to deal with the worse problems where policy falls short. When this is done in a situation and it is clearly unneeded and overkill, it is brutal to editor retention and morale. It flatly comes across as admin bullying, even if that is not the intent. Arb sanction blocks do not have the same checks and balances that a regular block has, and most people know little of Arb, except that it is something to be avoided. Without comment on this particular case, I maintain that using the threat of an Arb sanctioned block when it is clearly not needed would be a textbook case of abuse of admin tools, as only admin can issue these warnings.

Sandstein has clearly indicated that he believes that these sanctions can and should be used any time that their use isn't a direct policy violation. I believe this is turning the system upside down. Community policy comes first, and Arb sanctions are for when regular policy is insufficient. The standard should be (or is) that Arb sanctions are somewhat narrow in scope and should only be used when less aggressive methods are not likely to be effective, or have been tried and failed. Not necessarily the last resort, but certainly not the first resort. These aren't emergency situations, and if they were, the block button is the right tool. His interpretation is a recipe for abuse, as it would allow some admin to use them liberally to simply prevent review of his blocks, thus dominate an area, while greatly limiting the scrutiny in each block. The threat of an Arb sanction is simply too powerful a tool to be used so casually. Clarity is requested. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Arbs I trust Sandstein acted in good faith, but I think the tags were overkill here and they may be getting used too often. My concern is moving forward that we understand that threatening an Arb sanction is not as trivial as a TW template, and it requires a higher threshold than using a TW template, due to the reasons and risks I've outlined. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Drawing to your attention my comment at [16] as it deals with your privacy jurisdiction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

NYB: COI editing is a terrible scourge that reduces, in appearance and fact, the value of the Pedia, agreed. However, such concerns give way under the demands of CIV and the check of NPOV. Both these pillars working together provide the shield, crucible, and veil necessary to focus on the edits (which is what really matters to the Pedia) and to countermand the POV pusher. Yes, on occasion we have to delve into COI, to understand what is going on but the Pillars still, as that instruction quote notes, says where the balance lies, because COI itself does not necessarily actualize in edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter cohen: A mens rea for negligence? Criminal mind? That is the type rhetoric that is so over-the-top that it leads to disruption and discredit upon the proponent of it. Which is in part what appears to bring us to this pass. That comment [17] continues the pattern, which was the pattern found against the blocked user, to so gratuitously waive around the name, that you bludgeon the discussion with it. It appears your rhetoric wants to make it about the person, but Wiki policies for good reason resist such personalization. And it's one factor why reasonable minds think that warning about such use, after the block of the other user, is within reason, and thus within discretion. Reasonable minds may differ, of course, but, in the end, you may not intend your rhetoric to be personally harassing, yet it looks like that to plenty of others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter cohen: 1) conduct is about conduct, it is not about the person, it is about certain acts the person has taken within a given context; 2) being rebuffed in criticism comes as no surprise to anyone, nor is it a license for continuing an apparent pattern of harassment of another user; 3) the "name" and personal harassment that I referred to above is the name of the person that you identify as the person you "have had previous disagreements with Prioryman" about on-wiki and off wiki things; 4) Whether or not you believe it was legitimate for the admin to act to protect Prioryman, and thus the functioning of appropriate and policy compliant discussions of other people on the Pedia, that is the apparent reason for all of the Admins actions at issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Jayen466: This comment [18] proves too much. Indeed, its shows why the discretion was warranted. Note they all say it could be harassing, which is the rasion de etre for the Outing policy. More importantly, the fact that reasonable minds disagree shows that the Admin acted within reasoned discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

My position is similar to TDA's above.

I made two posts to Sandstein's talk page querying his actions. These are visible in the last section of this version of his talk page. In those posts I linked to User:ChrisO, (which is and was a redirect to User:Prioryman,) but did not explicitly state any of the user's more recent account names. I also linked to the archived ANI discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive773#Repeated_violation_of_RfC_restrictions_-_site_ban_proposed_for_Youreallycan and referred to User:Qwyrxian's closing summary. I pointed out that Sandstein had gone against the community's consensus or near consensus that naming Prioryman is not outing. In accordance with the spirit of the conclusion I did not give Prioryman's real name even though I think that it has become a secret as open as that of the identity of the author of Waverley at the time that Bertrand Russell wrote "On_Denoting". I then said I would take Sandstein to AN for going against the community consensus or near consensus previously expressed at ANI id the issue of Prioryman's name was the substance of his actions against TDA and Drg55. Sandstein's response was to issue me with an Arbitration warning under the Scientology case. To the best of my recollection I have never edited any articles related to Scientology and have not concerned myself with that dispute.

I therefore ask the committee:

1) When a previously uninvolved editor questions an admin and asks them to account for the use of their admin powers, is it legitimate for the admin to immediately use their admin powers against the editor who has just challenged them? If so, what are the circumstances under which this is legitimate? My view is that Sandstein has violated at least the spirit of WP:Involved by taking the actions he did against TDA and myself. He has also gone against policy and guidelines regarding admin accountability through using his powers to intimidate those who have questioned him

2) When an admin is using his powers to enforce opinions which have been demonstrated at ANI or similar locations not to have the consensus of the community, has he got the right to persist in going against that consensus and to use his admin powers against those who have pointed it out? My view is that only Arbcom, Jimbo or WMF employees taking staff actions should be allowed to be anything like as cavalier about over-ruling the community's judgment as Sandstein has been.

3) When an editor has a long history of being uninvolved in a topic area and does not say anything related to that subject, is it legitimate to use sanctions related only to that content area? My opinion is no. I have had previous disagreements with Prioryman but these have been related to the Fae case and to Gibraltarpedia and, more generally, differences of opinion over Wikipediocracy and the running of WMUK. If my conduct was problematic, and I consider that it was not, then it should only be sanctions applicable in those areas that should have been used.

I ask Arbcom to undo the actions that Sandstein has taken against me. Also, on the evidence I can see, I think that the actions against TDA should also be reversed. I have not looked at Drg55's history but I ask Arbcom to do so and consider whether at the least the grounds for various admin actions need tweaking. I also ask Arbcom to consider recent criticism in assorted places on Wikipedia of Sandstein's conduct and consider whether some guidance and advice would be of value.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that consideration is being given to protecting Prioryman's name from association with the Arbcom case. I ask that consideration be given to disassociating mine? Even though I cannot be unnotified, Sandstein's poor judgment has resulted in my name being recorded on the same page as Prioryman's website is linked and being associated with Scientology.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I should like to draw attention to various aspects of policy and Arbcom rules and procedures that Sandstein has ignored

• WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

By issuing warnings against myself and TDA and by issuing a sanction against TDA Sandstein failed to respond civilly to queries that are clearly within the bounds of civility and reasonable good faith and that were not personal attacks. He aggravated his breach of admin accountability by attempting to intimidate me from taking his poor use of his powers to ANI, one of the standard methods for appealing against the abuse of admin powers.

• WP:AC/DS "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;"

Given that both TDA and I had pointed out that many editors had expressed the view in the previous ANI discussion to which Sandstein's attention had been drawn that it was not outing to name Prioryman, then Sandstein willfully ignored the fact that many reasonable uninvolved editors would question the sanction.

• WP:INVOLVED "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

Both TDA and I were in current disputes with Sandstein as we had both questioned his judgment with regards to the WP:OUTING. Especially as I had mentioned my intention to take him to ANI, Sandstein had a clear conflict of interest in imposing the warning on me as he hoped that it would prevent me from taking him to ANI.

• "WP:ADMINABUSE If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process further). For more possibilities, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents and Requests for comment: Use of administrator privileges. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or e-mail the Arbitration Committee directly."

ANI is explicitly mentioned as a legitimate channel for complaining about improper actions by Sandstein. He sought to prevent it being used.

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith There is too much here to quote but Sandstein has clearly failed to accept that anyone can question his judgment in good faith. He immediately assumed that there must be some malice behind what TDA an I did and went looking for what he considered the most likely bad faith justification.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except... following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)."

Here ANI has been identified as a legitimate location for discussing and overturning enforcement actions. Sandstein has tried to prevent his decisions from being the subject of community discussion even though he knew from the archived thread to which both TDA and I had drawn his attention that most participants in that previous discussion at ANI disagreed with his interpretation of WP:OUTING.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that Sandstein has only come to the committee because he has lost control of the situation and the community has become involved despite his best efforts to prevent in being allowed to express its views on this matter. His actions against me and TDA show that he lacks the ability to consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Wikipedia is littered with posts such as ["I'm deeply, deeply tempted to jump on the desysop bandwagon as well. "ArbCom repeatedly refuses to do anything about blatantly-unsuitable admins" — check. And cowboys such as Sandstein and ... place blocks that they obviously know are highly controversial, without advising with anybody, without warning the user, and throw primadonna fits if somebody ventures to unblock without first collecting a consensus on ANI." I wonder if the poster of that message would consider Sandstein's actions against TDA and myself to be throwing primadonna fits.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Question for Heim, Salvio and anyone else who thinks warnings are not reversible

Would you still maintain this opinion if a) an admin party to an Arbcom case who thought that they were about to be de-sysopped went and issued assorted warnings against the Arbcoms members they blamed for their impending de-sysopping; or b) an admin who had become disillusioned with WP issued warnings against various people listed at Wikipedia:Famous_Wikipedians, picking and choosing subjects that would be particularly likely to be sensitive to the targets?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Information to clarify Arbcom's focus

Here is a section of the [thread] to which TDA and I drew Sandstein#s attention

Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

These quotes are not from far down the thread in question.

The reference to any potential rudeness in referring to User:ChrisO is therefore a red herring. Prioryman has stated that it is not a problem within the last none months. Perhaps he has changed his mind since October, but for someone to have the mens rea to be harassing him by referring to the ChrisO identity, that person needs to be aware that Prioryman has changed his mind. As far as I know he has not, which also means that I doubt that TDA would be aware of any such hypothetical change. Therefore Sandstein's claiming that TDA was outing Prioryman by mentioning the "ChrisO account is spurious and therefore the sanction is unjustified. Further Sandstein's failure to read even as much as the first couple of screens of the ANI discussion to which two users have drawn his attention in order to find that the reference to "ChrisO" has been declared not to be problematic by the man himself shows that Sandstein has the mens rea for culpable neglect or willful negligence in his exercise of his Admin powers. He either could not be bothered to perform his duties (culpable neglect) or was so arrogant in his conviction that he is always right and that mere ordinary users did not have the right to challenge him that he did not look (willful negligence).

In either case the discussion of whether it is harassment to mention the previous userid of Prioryman is a red herring except as evidence that the people who have been mentioning it up to now haven't yet done their homework.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker You have failed to notice that Sandstein made it about the person from the moment he chose not to assume good faith and not to abide by rules of admin accountability by using his against the individuals who questioned his previous use of them. By issuing warnings and by using discretionary sanctions he made this matter an issue of user conduct and not one of discussing the applicability of certain powers to a situation. Once he chose to make user conduct part of the issue, then his own conduct could not be excluded from this affair. He only sought advice from Arbcom on this matter after a substantial number of users condemned his actions at ANI.

You also ignore basic human psychology. When someone has a legitimate complaint and they are rebuffed, then the normal reaction to such behavior is to shout louder. Just look through some recent newspapers and I am sure you will find people saying about hospitals or police or other public institutions that it was not financial compensation that they wanted, rather all they wanted to do is have their complaint listened to fairly. It is the action of the authorities trying to silence the complaint that then creates all the drama that ends in the court cases and newspaper reports and hearings in parliament. It is the behavior of people like Sandstein and of people like you who back him as a reflex action that is the root cause of Wikidrama, not that of people who have been the victims of admin abuse. The Wikipedian way you praise is what has resulted in umpteen content creators walking out, in Wikipediocracy thriving and gaining press coverage of malfeasance on this site because it ignores how anger and hurt are the feelings generated in ordinary human beings who are maltreated by officialdom and that it is perfectly normal to express those feelings of anger and hurt by complaining about the abusive officials. Telling people that they have no right to express the anger and hurt just creates more anger and hurt and increases the expression of it. Dennis Brown, however, has modeled behavior that reduces drama through asking questions to clarify his understanding of what has been going on and by waiting to hear from Sandstein before reaching his conclusions about the matter. If more people at ANI followed his lead, then there would be an awful lot less drama.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@AlanScottwalker "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Whether or not Sandstein's motivation was good, he paved this particular highway to Hell with his arrogance and self-righteousness. An accountable admin who assumed good faith would have read the thread that TDA and I referred him to and would have come back and said "Okay the community does not support my view that it is outing to indicate what the "O" stands for but the closing admin did highlight that the use of the surname could be intended to harass Prioryman. In my view the intention was to harass. I will go and change the block grounds to one of harassment, not of outing." That is the non-drama-mongering way in which he could have handled it. However, Sandstein has a history of not being to accept disagreement, hence the comment about him from the bureaucrat board that I quote above. He does not listen to people who point out his errors of judgment or even have simple disagreements with him. It is his failure to accept that people can disagree with him in good faith and his insistence on using his admin powers against people who have merely disagreed that have led to his being taken to AN/I. Unless he shows signs here of being able to accept that his conduct has been hugely sub-optimal, then he is not fit to be an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Sandstein's proposed new sanction

I don't see how this is needed. As indicated above Prioryman has not too long ago replied to an explicit question that his old id being mentioned is not an issue. No one has produced evidence that TDA and Prioryman have an intense ongoing dispute. In fact, in a recent AN thread concerning Gibraltarpedia, TDA supported Prioryman's assertion about some Gibraltarian being notable. All TDA has done to trigger Sandstein's ire is to point to evidence contrary to Sandstein's interpretation of the fact. Sandstein chose to ignore policy on admin accountability and started slapping around warnings and enforcement restrictions. If he felt that the discussion should not be on Wikipedia, Sandstein had the option of emailing TDA and carrying on the conversation offline. Sandstein rejected the civil options and decided to go all Terminator instead. There is no need for any ongoing restriction.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking some questions again

I asked the following in my original statement and don't see much response from the Arbs. I ask them again in the hope that they might be noticed this time.

1) When a previously uninvolved editor questions an admin and asks them to account for the use of their admin powers, is it legitimate for the admin to immediately use their admin powers against the editor who has just challenged them? If so, what are the circumstances under which this is legitimate? My view is that Sandstein has violated at least the spirit of WP:Involved by taking the actions he did against TDA and myself. He has also gone against policy and guidelines regarding admin accountability through using his powers to intimidate those who have questioned him

2) When an admin is using his powers to enforce opinions which have been demonstrated at ANI or similar locations not to have the consensus of the community, has he got the right to persist in going against that consensus and to use his admin powers against those who have pointed it out? My view is that only Arbcom, Jimbo or WMF employees taking staff actions should be allowed to be anything like as cavalier about over-ruling the community's judgment as Sandstein has been.

3) When an editor has a long history of being uninvolved in a topic area and does not say anything related to that subject, is it legitimate to use sanctions related only to that content area? My opinion is no. I have had previous disagreements with Prioryman but these have been related to the Fae case and to Gibraltarpedia and, more generally, differences of opinion over Wikipediocracy and the running of WMUK. If my conduct was problematic, and I consider that it was not, then it should only be sanctions applicable in those areas that should have been used.

--Peter cohen (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

Leaving other issues behind, I just want to say please, please, please listen to Sandstein's last sentence, for the love of Pete. People are asking for warnings to be rescinded. I still don't believe warnings can be rescinded, as I view them as mere notifications, but since the committee has never clarified this, I cannot prove this, nor can those who believe warnings are a first step to sanctions. We asked for clarification on this months ago (I can't even remember how many). It's not right that we've had to wait this long. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Salvio, as you can see, I totally agree with you on the non-rescindability of warnings, but I have no good documentation for that. As has been pointed out, our documentations is contadictory, and some of it supports the notion held by others, including (I believe) Sandstein, which is that a warning is a formal step toward sanctions issued only by admins and in the case of conduct violations in the area, like when the cops give you a warning for speeding it goes on your record. In such a case, it would make sense that they would be rescindable. That's why we still need clarification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Warnings are logged here for future reference by other admins (who may directly apply sanctions as a next step). If the warnings were inappropriate, of course you can rescind them. You just delete them from the log, or strike them. What's so difficult? Andreas JN466 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: In practice, a logged warning means that any other admin can block or ban the user without further notice. It's a target painted on the user's back. This is not theory: it's what happened to The Devil's Advocate here. If the warning was inappropriate (and it was, in both cases), it should be rescinded, simple as that, to "reset" these editors' status to the same status everyone else enjoys.

We now have two (possibly three, given that there was a COI issue in that article) arbitrators saying that even Drg55's original mention of the editor's surname was not outing, which is the official reason given for the block given in Drg55's block log. So half the arbitrators commenting here are saying that Sandstein's block rationale was invalid. This is all The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen said. As things stand, Roger and Salvio are permitted to say it wasn't outing, without finding their names logged on the ARBSCI page by Sandstein, while The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen stand warned and sanctioned for saying the same thing. This is not right. Please remove their warnings from the log, and rescind The Devil's Advocate's sanction. --Andreas JN466 23:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I think we are all in agreement that Drg55 should remain topic-banned. But your trying to demonstrate that Drg55 is a wicked scoundrel is beside the point. For, to quote a man I am fond of, "it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all" (Mencken). Censoring arbcom pages years after the fact to make something that happened in plain sight of the community unhappen is Stalinist rubbish.

The right thing to do is to sanction Drg55 for what s/he did. The wrong thing to do is to change the truth for them and everyone else just so that you can use a bigger ban hammer on them. Andreas JN466 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I agree that Drg55's editing was disruptive, and said as much at AE. Drg55 would need to learn a bit more about sourcing policies and come to a better understanding of what sources are and are not considered okay to cite; as it was, s/he did not respond well to entirely germane criticism of his/her sources. In light of that, declining the appeal against the topic ban seemed perfectly reasonable. Andreas JN466 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein's statement at AN/I

Sandstein has now posted the following at AN/I:

This has been up for some 12 days now, even though discussion has stalled and I think it's pretty clear by now that this will not result in administrative action. Additionally, the discussion among arbitrators at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology has broadly supported my view that the naming of the editor at issue against their expressed will constitutes (at least) harassment, except perhaps under certain circumstances not present here. The presence of certain parts of this thread in this public space may contribute to this harassment. For these reasons, I request that an uninvolved administrator close and archive this discussion.

If people disagree with my AE actions, I am always ready to discuss them, but – particularly if they relate to private information – I ask any who disagree to pursue the formal appeals and/or dispute resolution process, rather than to just make noise and assumptions of bad faith in public fora, which (as shown here) accomplishes little. As discussed in the clarification request, as soon as that request is closed, I intend to replace the sanction relating to The Devil's Advocate (which has failed to accomplish its purpose) with a sanction intended to prevent the continuation of the harassment at issue here more generally. Sandstein 15:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not encouraging. Sandstein's view that this was outing has not been supported here: Sandstein would have to warn and sanction several arbitrators for telling him the precise thing that Peter cohen and The Devil's Advocate told him. (Both said it was not outing, without repeating the name, which is precisely what several arbitrators did below.) In addition, Sandstein elides the fact that there was a very significant conflict-of-interest issue in the article at question, which is at best ignorant, and at worst disingenuous, given that the very question of whether the mere mention of the name itself is even harassment hinges on whether there is a conflict of interest or not. Furthermore, Sandstein promises that he will take unspecified further action on his own, bypassing the committee. This is nothing but a power grab by someone who dearly wanted to be an arbitrator, but has never managed to garner enough of the community's trust to actually become one, and for good reasons. Andreas JN466 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I object to Sandstein's reference to an "alleged" name of the editor in question. The editor in question, the former ChrisO, identified himself by name in his edits, voluntarily, and linked his old account to his new one, voluntarily. Bells can not be unrung, nor virginity restored. Once an editor identifies by name on WP, that editor is identified by name on WP. For example, I can't tomorrow start to squawk about "outing" and ask that all references to my real life name, Tim Davenport, be stricken from WP and any future reference to it result in sanctions. That's just the way it is. Sandstein is expressing an extreme view of this situation, one with plenty of precedent on Wiki to discount his position. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

To contrast with what Dennis is saying; warning about "Arb sanctions on unsuspecting editors" is precisely what one should do where sanctions are in force. Articles are under discretionary sanctions precisely because a "fast track" exception to standard community policies is what is needed in those topics areas covered by them, and editors in that topic area should know. These warnings should not be treated as something handed out with great deliberation and controversy, or else they lose the entire point of their existence; trying to deal with particularly problematic areas.

There is a process for getting an AE decision overturned; that a single admin can't just simply overturn it is irrelevant. Discretionary sanctions are here because they are a necessary mechanism in those topics areas. From experience, one also gets a damn sight more due process at AE than at ANI. The contrast with AE is a lynchmob. What's the alternative? Look at the ANI thread about Sandstein, where those with an axe to grind come out of the wood work and don't declare their involvement.

Sanctions, meanwhile are almost universally defined as being broad in scope across a topic area, they are not narrowly defined (I don't know of any such case of narrowly defined DS scope), and its uninvolved admins that look at the case. The checks and balances are stronger for AE than ANI, and there is a clearly defined process.

.. and it's not just admins that can warn about DS, the guidelines were ambiguous last time I checked and non-admins have given warnings, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

@Salvio: If there is one area on Wikipedia in which a "legalistic" approach is appropriate, it is surely the area of discretionary sanctions, which are only promulgated for subject areas in which the normal Wikipedia approach has broken down, and, in some cases, descended into near chaos. It is necessary in those areas to be less forgiving of behavioral eccentricities and more "legalistic" in order to implement ArbCom decisions, which are, after all, "legalistic" in form and content.

Already we have a situation where there are very few admins who are willing to patrol AE and discretionary-sanctioned subject areas, and the Committee should be extremely careful in their comments and actions in this case, since the result could be that even fewer admins will be willing to police it, which will leave a gaping hole in the enforcement of ArbCom decisions. Unless the Committee is prepared to take personal responsibility for the enforcement of all its decisions, it needs admins such as Sandstein, whose work ought to be praised and not denigrated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

There seems to be a lot differing opinions about whether notifying/warning an editor about discretionary sanctions is really a warning or just a simple notification. Some editors believe that it's simply a notification. Other editors believe that it is a warning after some alleged misconduct. IIRC, I've been told by at least one admin that a warning/notification (whichever it is) is best given by an uninvolved admin who patrols the topic space. I don't know what the correct answers to these questions to these questions are, but I do know that different editors/admins answer them in different ways. It would be nice, and probably best done separately from the current dispute here, for us to reach consensus on these questions. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

According to WP:AC/DS,

“ Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways ”

This is an exact quote according to WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.

Can the Committee please confirm (or reject):

1. That such warnings/notifications are in fact, not notifications, but actual warnings (per the wording of WP:AC/DS)?
2. That such warnings (assuming that the answer to question #1 is a warning) should identify the actual misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways?
3. That such warnings (assuming that the answer to question #1 is a warning and assuming the answer to question #2 is yes), do warnings that do not identify misconduct and/or do not identify how the editor may amend their ways still count?

Also, can the committee clarify who should make such warnings/notifications? Can only admins do this? Or can regular editors do this? Does it matter whether the admin or the editor is involved or uninvolved in the dispute?

There seems to be many differing opinions on each of these questions. Can the Committee please provide clarification? If the Committee would prefer that such clarifications be separate from the current request, I can file a separate Request for Clarification. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I probably am misunderstanding your last comment (so I apologize in advance) but did you just say that you - a sitting member of ArbCom - don't have WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment on your watch list? Seriously? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

The original enforcement request concerning Drg55 was lodged by Prioryman. One of the recent diffs presented there[19] questioned whether, like MartinPoulter, Prioryman was, "an unreconstructed neo fascist participant from alt.religion.scientology". Drg55 further stated, "our critics are generally insane" and "I personally exposed quite a few attackers of Scientology with weapon of truth, and truth does defeat lies." It was on the basis of edits like that that Drg55 was indefinitely topic banned from all edits relating to Scientology or religion in general. Drg55's appeal was rejected, because of the non-neutral nature of his edits, as EdJohnston commented. During that appeal Drg55 again made comments discussing Prioryman's activities off-wikipedia. He did so repeatedly even after receiving warnings, the first of which was from Future Perfect at Sunrise.[20] That resulted in Sandstein's indefinite block. The objections to the block did not address in any way the problems with Drg55's editing. Instead there were wikilawyering edits suggesting that the identification could be deduced from "join-the-dots" sleuthing on wiki. However, Drg55's comments about both MartinPoulter and Prioryman were unambiguously attacks on and harassment of both editors. The wikilawyering about outing on public noticeboards has had the unfortunate and probably unintentional effect of continuing possible harassment. The two logged notifications of WP:ARBSCI seem fairly standard in the circumstances. Effectively that advice was ignored and the disruption initiated by Drg55 has continued. The extensive catalogue of criticisms of Sandstein by Peter cohen on this page seems completely disproportionate to the logged notification or warning. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jayen466: My reading of the situation is that Drg55's editing was disruptive; and in various ways, hence the very broad topic ban. During the appeal it became more so, even after warnings. Previously in June there was indeed an edit summary where Drg55 mentioned the possibility of wikipedia being sued.[21] Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Someone not using his real name

It seems that most arbitrators commenting below have missed the fact that whereas Peter Cohen was "only" warned, in the The Devil's Advocate case, the warning was followed by an actual sanction imposed. I think that there is only an academic distinction between an admin officially AE-warning an editor not to do something and officially AE-sanctioning him with a ban prohibiting said editor from doing said something. Sandstein's warnings were not mere notifications of the existence of some Arbitration case. Both editors warned were already aware of that, and Sandstein was aware that they were aware. The two editors were in fact sanctioned for being too aware of some content of that Arbitration. Downplaying the obvious stifling intent with which Sandstein placed the two warnings and the one topic ban he subsequently issued to TDA as a mere notification shows the vast chasm between how this is perceived by the editor-peons and the lofty admins/arbs on this page and at ANI. And people wonder why most editors see admins as an unaccountable Old Boys' club... By the way, Arbcom has yet to address Sandstein's subsequent "Request for preventative measures" made on this very page, in which he asks that the Scientology Arbitration case be redacted so that certain editors may be no longer be "outed" by linking to it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TransporterMan

I would like to second A Quest for Knowledge's request for clarification for when and how DS notices/warnings are to be given, and express hope that will be in the policy that Salvio refers to below. As presently stated, step number 4 of the DS process states, "4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". That formulation is unclear as to whether actual misconduct is needed before the warning can be given or whether it is possible to give it (a) merely because an editor is either merely editing in the area to which DS apply or (b) because the editor is engaging in conduct which is questionable, but which is not clearly misconduct (e.g. a very slow motion edit war consisting of clearly revert–y edits stretched over days or weeks or conduct which is viciously curt and abrupt but short of being clear incivility). I fall on the side that they ought to be able to be given merely as notices. If these areas are important enough to establish DS's for, then these warnings ought to be no more than statements that, in effect, "We're not saying that you're doing anything wrong for sure, but your behavior has caught our eye and we want you to know what you have at stake." The alternative would be to establish that a notice must be given first, perhaps by templating the article talk page (as far as I know, the talk page templates currently have no actionable effect), then make the current individual-editor templates last-chance type warnings per se once that notice has been in place for a period of time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Following RegentsPark's analysis, below, and to make clear that I consider the alternative I describe above to be the poorer choice:

1. Any uninvolved editor should be able to give the notices, but the rule should also say that a notice given by an involved editor is not invalid but is only incivil.

2. Giving the notice should not require prior misconduct, merely participating in a DS area should be enough. The rule should say that if misconduct or questionable conduct has occurred it should be pointed out, but that failure to do so should neither invalidate the notice nor require another warning prior to the imposition of DS if the conduct or questionable conduct continues.

3. In light of how and why — I think — DS came to be, i.e. to reduce drama, individualized notices probably ought to be required, but since I'm not sure of that provenance, my opinion on this point is weak.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark

Though this is not directly relevant to the Scientology case, I concur with TransporterMan above that we need some sort of clarity on the process of notifying an editor about discretionary sanctions in a topic area. In particular, arbs need to clarify:

1. Who can issue these notifications - any editor, any uninvolved editor, admins only, uninvolved admins only?
2. Are these notifications merely informational or should they follow some sort of wrongdoing?
3. Are editors subject to action under discretionary sanctions only after notification or at anytime (assuming article talk pages are clearly templated with a DS notice)?

My personal inclination is to treat these notifications as purely informational in nature and editors who edit in a sanctioned area should be notified of the existence of these sanctions by any editor. That way, it is clear to an uninvolved admin that an editor knows about the sanctions and we won't need to get into extended discussions of the sort we're seeing here - i.e., when someone's behavior is wrong enough for sanctions to be issued. Clear and unequivocal guidance from arbitrators is, I think, essential. --regentspark (comment) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf

In terms of making people aware of discretionary sanctions, I think there needs to be a distinction made between "notice", "general (or friendly) warning" and "specific (or formal) warning".

• Notices are a heads-up to editors working in the affected area making them aware that discretionary sanctions exist for the topic area they are working in. They imply no wrong doing or cause for concern, and should be worded to make this clear. They may be left by anyone.They cannot be revoked or withdrawn as once you are aware of something you cannot be made unaware of it.
• General warnings are for making editors aware both that discretionary sanctions exist for the topic area they are working and that there is potential cause for concern with their editing, and that although there is no specific problem they are sailing close to the wind, or that there could be problems if they go much further than they have already - be careful. The tone should be friendly and contain no threats of specific action while making it clear that sanctions could be imposed if the warning is not heeded. These warnings may be left by anyone, although preferably by someone not directly involved and definitely not someone with any history of interpersonal conflict with the recipient. They cannot be withdrawn/revoked as it is just making people aware that there are concerns, and you can't be made unaware of that.
• Specific warnings are for use where there are specific problems with an editor's actions, such that their edits are actually disrupting the topic area or attempts to resolve the dispute, etc. These should explicitly indicate specifically the problems, ideally with linked examples, and make it clear that continuing will lead to sanctions without warning. The tone must be formal and precise, and the specific warning may also include a more general warning regarding other parts of the same topic area. These warnings may not be left by anyone directly involved with the dispute or an interpersonal history with the recipient. Ideally the should almost never by be left someone involved at all, but if they are they must make this clear. References to specific actions as harmful or problematic may be withdrawn, but awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions and that their editing is potentially problematic can not.

Sanctions must be preceded by one or more of the above or other evidence of awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions (e.g. active participation in the arbcom case or community discussion that authorised them, leaving a warning for another user, etc), except in the case of gross or wilful disruption.
What level of notice/warning has been left before, how long ago it was and the nature of the disruption should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to sanction or futher warn. If a user has only received one notice, it was a long time ago and they haven;t been active in the topic area recently another notice would probably be appropriate for minor issues. However for gross disruption very shortly after receiving a notice sanctions without further warning are probably justified. Users should not get more than one specific warning about the same actions/specific area unless they are separated by at least several months with no sanctions and little to no editing in the topic area between - the warning hasn't worked and sanctions are needed. Similarly a user shouldn't normally be getting more than two or three at absolute most general warnings before sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by DGG

I almost never comment on these matters. But it seems the trend of some views expressed here are so contrary to what I regard as a community-based way of doing things that I must say something.

• As for outing, I think NYV's discussion below is pretty definitive. Once the name has been widely revealed it is not outing. Using it against the preference of the user is in most situations discourteous. Whether it was or not discourteous in this case I am not commenting, but it is not outing and does not justify the application of penalties as if it were. Mentioning a widely known former user name against the preference of the user is not in the least outing, and can be discourteous when not germane to the discussion. It is a much lesser problem as compared to a similar use of a real name, let alone to outing.
  
• As for the broadness of discretionary sanctions, they're a very strong and direct sanction difficult to appeal, and should be used cautiously. I can't rule out that a use in an indirect violation or in a manner not literally specified might not be sometimes required. I do have an opinion that Sandstein's action was excessive and not justified by the situation. And, as is often the case, if the purpose of DS is to immediately stop something from escalating, it was certainly counterproductive. I hope such unjustified use of power will always be noticed, so we admins will learn not to do it. Whether it is sufficiently unjustified in this case to call for action against the admin would depend on many factors, such as whether such overreaching is a one time event or habitual, and I am not now giving any opinion.
  
• DS are not ordinary sanctions. They're the invocation of arbitrary action based on the decision of a single individual, that requires action of many individuals to undo. Such measures should be used only when unquestionably necessary. The opinion expressed that it's no harsher than ordinary blocks is unrealistic--they are so much more powerful that I personally would never feel sure enough of myself to use one. I find it highly alarming that arb com routinely resorts to them to make decisions that affect the actual resolution of a dispute, one that they often hesitate to make themselves. Arb com is, as it should be, deliberately set up in such a way as to provide for extensive prior discussion and joint consensus among the members of the committee. DS are the exact reverse of that, and to rely on any of the wide diversity of individual admins doing them right is alien to the spirit of a cooperative group of people. It produces such anomalies as the present one. Admins sometimes need to take emergency action, which is then subject to community review. I accept that with particularly difficult articles situations for more permanent immediate action may arise, but if so they should be construed as narrowly as possible and used with the greatest possible amount of consideration and judgment. Drastic action left to the discretion of any one of hundreds of individuals is dangerous, because someone among the hundreds will always be found who take an unreasonably alarmist view of a situation. DS encourages such extremism.
  

I think I am in all this essentially agreeing with Dennis, though I may be stating it even more strongly than he would endorse. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mangoe

I am largely in agreement with DGG's analysis of the situation, but I wish to add one note. Well, two notes actually.

Admins are not supposed to be exalted users beyond the judgement of more mortal editors, but that's the crux of what happened here: two ordinary editors were threatened for questioning Sandstein's judgement in an issue. It's one thing to refuse to reconsider, though I think that to do so as a matter of course demonstrates an unbecoming and disruptive arrogance. But be that as it may, neither response outed anyone, whether or not one thinks that Prioryman's identity is public knowledge. It's abundantly clear that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to that last issue, so it's hard for me to take seriously the need for discipline in raising it as an issue. But it is quite clear to me that the function of ARBSCI in this is abusive, perhaps inadvertently so, but nonetheless disruptive. It seems that Prioryman has become a protected person because it is alleged somewhere that he has some connection to public critique/defense of Scientology, and therefore any discussion of him can be slapped down with AE even if Scientology itself doesn't figure in the dispute at hand; and furthermore, if anyone complains about how some admin has handled such a dispute, the complainants can be summarily disciplined by that admin. Heck, if I wanted to cultivate the same protection, I could publish some anti-Scientology tracts off-wiki, let slip that I authored them (without even really revealing my true name), and then cultivate some admin to defend me.

And in the end I feel that I shouldn't have to go through this elaborate an analysis. Allowing admins to discipline people simply for disagreeing with them has such an obvious potential for abuse that it should be forbidden absolutely. ARBSCI has nothing to do with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An additional point on outing: Years ago when I authored Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, one of my points was that the genie of identity cannot in reality be stuffed back in the bottle once it has been let out. It seems to me that if people want to reclaim anonymity here, they must make a clean break from their old identity and leave no trail back to it. It's absurd to insist that people pretend that they don't know, particularly when off-wiki there's no need for such a pretense. There seems to be some dispute in this case as to how well-identified the old account was, but no real attempt at a clean break was made, so it's unreasonable to insist that people pretend otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comments:

At this point I will address Sandstein's question whether it is permissible for an editor to mention Prioryman's real name; I may return to the other questions raised later.

Our policies permit editors to choose whether to associate their real-world identity with their Wikipedia identity. Putting aside editors who simply use their real name as their username, as to whom this issue does not arise, editors have a range of options in this regard. One can imagine a continuum, with editors who make no secret of who they are at all (such as by mentioning their names on their userpages), at one end and editors who make no reference at all to their real-world identity on-wiki or in any Wikimedia-related forum on the other.

Prioryman falls somewhere between the two extremes I have described; I don't think it's necessary to resolve precisely where he falls on the continuum between total openness of identity, on the one hand, and total separation of one's RL identity from the wikiworld on the other. At a minimum, it is clear that at this time, Prioryman does not want his RL name mentioned on-wiki. That preference, like any editor's, should be respected to the fullest extent possible.

As this Committee has observed several times, there is an unresolved tension between the project's policies against "outing" and our guidelines governing conflicts of interest, because it is sometimes impossible to diagnose or meaningfully discuss a COI without acknowledging who someone is. One can imagine conceivable scenarios in which it would become necessary, after careful deliberation and for a very good reason, to mention a (formerly) anonymous editor's name on-wiki. The example that has quickly become canonical is: "What if Qworty hadn't posted his name on his page before he was banned? Would we be unable to talk about his behavior, even as the rest of the world does so?" Our policy does not really deal with that kind of scenario.

But short of some sort of very serious COI problem or the like, there is simply no reason to mention Prioryman's (or anyone else's) real name on-wiki, especially if one knows that he prefers that it not be done. I don't see a lot of value in discussing whether this behavior should formally be classed as "outing". It is sufficient to say that "doing something that one knows annoys another editor, without any corresponding benefit" is a classic example of what one might call harassment, or at least unhelpful behavior. So in my mind, the starting point for the discussion should not be "are we allowed to mention Prioryman's real name?" but "why is it desirable to even think about doing so?"

A similar question has been raised concerning whether one may refer to Prioryman's former account name. In general, an editor is entitled to be referred to by his or her current username and not a previous one. In my view, it is permissible to refer to Prioryman's prior username where there is a specific and meaningful reason to do so, but not to do so gratuitously or unnecessarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Following up on the above, it bears emphasis that the project's current COI guideline and COI noticeboard instructions assert that the desire to avoid COI problems yields to the policy against "outing," i.e. revealing the identity of editors against their wishes, when the two are in conflict. See Wikipedia:COI#Avoid_outing. Whether that goal is realistically attainable in every case is partly a practical question and partly a policy question, and the extent to which an editors' name being disclosed elsewhere online or being widely known bears on the issue is something on which policy is less than clear. I realize that this is not exactly helpful, actionable guidance, and will try to formulate something that is sharper, but the project as a whole has been grappling with the tension between the COI-discouragement and the non-identification ideals for at least seven years without being able to resolve them, so I can't promise an access of insight overnight. One thing that I can say is that the reaction to an editor who mentions someone's name in good faith in a COI discussion should be very different from the reaction to one who does it for the purpose of annoying or harassing, so as with any other violation of policy, an appropriately tailored caution or warning will often (not always) be the proper response to a good-faith first offense (not saying that is what happened here, just speaking generally). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Turning to another question, whether warnings or notices can be retracted and whether they are appealable. If an editor has edited problematically in a given area subject to DS, even borderline problematically, letting him or her know that there are DS available in the topic-area and at least one administrator perceives he or she may be getting close to incurring one, is generally a service for everyone. Such notices are not necessarily meant to be seen as scarlet letters, and entertaining appeals of "I didn't deserved to be warned" on the same basis as "I didn't deserve to be 1RR'd" or "I didn't deserve to be topic-banned" isn't likely to be a good use of everyone's time. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to rule out the idea that such notifications are appealable ever. If an administrator, for example, started issuing notifications/warnings to editors who did not even arguably do anything wrong, I'd be hard-pressed to say that they must automatically stand without reexamination. So my own take, which may not be the Committee's, is that a warning may be brought up for review but only where it was clearly undeserved and inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I will also respond to Sandstein's first question while contemplating the other two. As far as I know (and I've had plenty of reason to review this over the years), the editor in question has never published his full name onwiki, and has made it very clear that he considers any on-wiki publication of his full name (or anything that could be construed to be his full name) to be outing and/or harassment. As such, Drg55's repeated insertion of that information constitutes at least an intentional effort to harass the user and link him to an off-wiki identity. This outing took place in direct relation to a topic that Drg55 knew was under Arbcom and discretionary sanctions, as he was appealing a sanction that had been applied to him. Therefore, the removal and warning to Drg55 from Future Perfect at Sunrise and the subsequent block by Sandstein on Drg55 under the discretionary sanctions of the Scientology arbitration case are appropriate and I see no cause to lift these sanctions. Risker (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The clarification regarding the policy on discretionary sanctions is almost ready and will be posted on wiki for discussion and voting soon, I believe. I'm sorry it took this long, but it was a complicated effort and there are still disagreements among the committee as to certain details. That said, I agree with Heimstern Läufer that warnings cannot be rescinded, as they are merely notices; and when a person has been made aware of them, there is no way he may "be made unaware" again.

  Furthermore, Sandstein, in my opinion, your approach to discretionary sanctions is way too legalistic. Our decisions are not legal documents and cannot be interpreted using the same construction rules a lawyer would use to interpret an act of Parliament: as far as I'm concerned, I expect people to interpret and enforce our decisions using commonsense, never forgetting that IAR is one of the five pillars. Not to mention that discretionary sanctions are always "authorised" and never made compulsory, which means that an administrator should use his discretion to determine whether the imposition of restrictions is the best way to stop the disruption an editor is causing; if not, then nobody is obliged or expected to impose a discretionary sanction.

  Also, I believe that the sanction you imposed on The Devil's Advocate was not warranted and, what's more, I'm not sure it was validly imposed (I'm not sure questioning a sanction you've imposed can be considered making edits about a topic, not even using a very broad construction of the clause).

  Finally, and I know I disagree with my colleagues here, since the link between Prioryman and ChrisO has been disclosed many times on wiki, including by ArbCom, to say that the two accounts are the same person is not outing. Moreover, *in my opinion*, not even saying what the "O" stands for is outing because it was indirectly acknowledged by the subject and was the basis of an ArbCom's finding of fact. Again only in my opinion, WP:OUTING only protects those who try to protect their identity: no policy on Wikipedia demands that editors play dumb... Referring to Prioryman's name may be harassment, when done maliciously, with the sole intent of causing him distress, but that's the exception, not the other way around. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  • @Peter cohen: I think that warnings are merely a way to insure that a user editing in a contentious area does not get sanctioned out of the blue; the way I see them, so, warnings are a way to protect editors from unpleasant surprises. Which means that, no matter the reason, once someone has been notified that DS have been authorised for a given topic area, there is no way for that person to be un-notified. If there is a good reason, I have no objections to removing a warning from the log, but that does not invalidate the notification.

    @Newyorkbrad: which may not be the Committee's, is that a warning may be brought up for review but only where it was clearly undeserved and inappropriate., almost every warned editor thinks the warning was clearly undeserved; your limit would be pretty much useless and would require us to waste our time all the same, even if only to make sure that the warning in question was appropriate and deserved. I don't think that's a productive use of our limited resources. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    • @Beyond My Ken: there is a difference between criticising and denigrating and I'm surprised that someone here is confusing what I consider constructive criticism with belittlement.

      @A Quest For Knowledge: & @TransporterMan: yes, those aspects (and others) will be clarified hoperfully soon. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

    • @Sandstein: I don't really like the new restriction you proposed: you're, basically, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This problem requires a nuanced solution, one that deals with every use of Prioryman's name on a case-by-case basis. As I've said, using his name is not outing and may be harassment, depending on the circumstances; furthermore, I don't see any real reasons to treat this particular editor differently vis-à-vis all the others who have disclosed their identity onwiki. There can, of course, be an ex-post evalutation of whether a given mention of his name was warranted, but not a blanket ban. (Clearly, this is nothing but the opinion of this one arb.) In my opinion, the best course of action would be for Sandstein to lift TDA's restriction and then walk away, forgetting about this episode. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Responding to Sandstein's questions and using his numbering;

  1. Back in the day, the editor's real life identity was common knowledge within the Scientology topic. He regularly linked to sites mentioning it and acquiesced when it was used on-wiki. At that time though, the applicable policies were not as they are today and current policies acknowledge an individual's wish for a degree of personal privacy. It follows, therefore, that while referring to him by his real name is not outing, such references may well be intended to have a chilling effect or to cause discomfort.

  2. In my view, it's overreach to use discretionary sanctions for matters which are only coincidentally related to the topic and which can be dealt with satisfactorily underr existing policy. I haven't looked at this situation closely enough to see whether that is the case here.

  3. Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide fast track remedies to contain disruption arising from dysfunctional conduct in relation to the topic. They do this by sidestepping the usual community dispute resolution processes. Because they give administrators greater powers, and limit appeal options, they should be applied conservatively.

  Otherwise, I agree entirely with Salvio's point. Someone can no more be unnotified than they can take back a sneeze. Roger Davies ^talk 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Couple of quick points in response to Sandstein. I haven't had the time, nor likely will I be able, to read all of the background.

1. It's pretty clear at this time which account Prioryman used to use. It is also clear that Prioryman at the time did not object to the use of his real name in general discourse: I see now-banned editors and then-administrators alike using it in the archives. However, Prioryman now longer wishes other editors to refer to him by his real name; accordingly, the only appropriate reason to use the name of his old account is "for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums" (Wikipedia:Harassment). I don't think it matters what things were in the past; there is really no legitimate reason to continue using it. BASC is hearing Drg55's block now; that is a separate process and we can handle it as per usual.
2. It's a stretch of the discretionary sanctions procedure, but in my view that's an appropriate use of both discretionary sanctions and the standard administrators' toolkit. It may have not been warranted in this case ultimately, but that's a separate matter.
3. Discretionary sanctions absolutely do not need to be used in narrow cases only. An individual administrator can adopt that approach, but it is not required.

• And I really really apologize for previously promising and failing to follow through, but we really are working on an updated discretionary sanctions procedure that should moot the current ambiguousness about both warning prerequisites and rescindability. NW (Talk) 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have not researched into the background of this request so am unsure of the reason for the questions. I will simply respond off-cuff to the questions as asked, and if prodded on my talkpage will look deeper if needed.

1 Is the alleged [name of a user] private information, such that it is a violation of WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment to publish it on-wiki?

Yes. If a user has not revealed or acknowledged their real name on Wikipedia it is considered WP:OUTING to mention it. If the name has previously been revealed or acknowledged, but the user has expressed a wish to currently suppress it, then continuing to use it would be anti-social at the very least, and very likely to be WP:Harassment. That a user has been involved in an ArbCom case does not impact on the situation. It is no greater or lesser WP:OUTING/WP:Harassment. A user is not afforded protection because they have been part of an ArbCom case, nor are they a legitimate target. All users are covered by the same general guidelines unless explicitly stated otherwise.

2 Is it permitted to use discretionary sanctions to prohibit users from discussing certain matters related to private information on-wiki...?

No. A user is not afforded special ArbCom protection because they have been part of an ArbCom case (but nor are they a legitimate target for harassment or mistreatment). All users are covered by the same Wikipedia general guidelines and procedures unless explicitly stated otherwise by ArbCom.

3 Does the Committee expect that discretionary sanctions are used only in particular situations...?

Yes. DS are only to be used as described on WP:AC/DS. If a user editing in a topic area under DS published on the talkpage of an article under DS the real name of any user which violated WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment then DS would apply. But if a user published elsewhere on Wikipedia the real name of a user which violated WP:OUTING or WP:Harassment, then standard guidelines would apply, even if the user outed/harassed had been a party to an ArbCom case. Unless ArbCom specified that DS applied to an individual user, DS only applies to editing within a topic area. But it does mean that any repeated or serious violations of Wikipedia norms, such as harassment, on pages within DS, are liable to DS.

I am not watchlisting this page (and I don't have my name enabled on the new notifications software), so please ping me if a follow up is required on any aspect of what I have said. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Sandstein's questions are based on the assumption that DS has been authorized for the relevant area. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I was attempting to answer the questions asked. If the questions were more direct: such as "Was the block of Drg55 appropriate?" and "Were the subsequent AE warnings appropriate?" then a different set of answers would apply. I think the lack of clarity of Committee members' responses is to do with the wording of the questions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge. I use {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to alert me to this page. I will come back now and again to see what is happening on an open issue - the amount I check back will depend on the circumstances; but, no, I don't watchlist the page, so I may sometimes let people know that if they want a response from me personally (such as clearing up issues in a statement I make) it would be quicker to ping me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the first question, I have little more to add to NYB's comment, with which I completely agree. As to the second question, I think the answer is yes, as long as the incident that leads to the sanction is connected to a topic area for which discretionary sanctions has been authorized. For the third question, I think the answer must be no; provided that discretionary sanctions have been authorized in the topic area, there's no great need to strive to avoid employing them. Otherwise there's little need for them; a "normal" block would prevent any disruption that could be prevented by a discretionary sanction on an editor. Rather, administrators should aim to employ the least restrictive sanction that is likely to be effective in preventing disruption; in some cases it may be a warning, in others it may be a "normal" admin action, and in still other cases it may be a discretionary sanction. T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Scientology

Original discussion

Amendment request: Scientology (June 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Francis Schonken at 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted:

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

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

• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• 173.72.57.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification 173.72.57.223
• diff of notification user:Rick A. Ross
• diff of notification user:Rick Alan Ross

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted:

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

First proposal: retracted, obsolete --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request: ammend remedy 26 of the Scientology ArbCom case with "Rick Allen Alan Ross is permitted to edit Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) as 173.72.57.223 (talk · contribs)"

Second proposal

"Follow-up on Remedy 26: User:Rick A. Ross has contacted the Arbitration Committee and indentifies as Rick Ross (consultant). All other user accounts or editors claiming or pretending to be Rick Alan Ross will be blocked."

Statement by Francis Schonken

Subject was referred to Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) by OTRS. In order to proceed it should be best that the situation resulting from the 2009 Scientology case is cleared. See Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)#Discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Corrected Allen → Alan, sorry for the typo. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• @173.72.57.223: re. what can be done:
  • contact the Arbitration Committee by email (if you haven't done so already)
  • login as User:Rick Alan Ross and edit with that account exclusively (instead of editing as IP 173.72.57.223)
• @Yunshui and Guerillero: (and other arbitrators), some suggestions:
  • check the ArbCom mailbox whether such email arrived recently, or in a more distant past, and if so see what actions have been of should be given accordingly
  • explain to Rick Alan Ross why it is advantageous to comply with the ArbCom decision, or what can be done.

Note that my only stake in this is dealing with WP:BLP issues under WP:COI conditions (not my COI, the COI of Ross/173.72.57.223), without my current actions risking to be ultimately invalidated for a technical reason related to a past arbcom case. I think ArbCom can do something to avoid such risk. Some creativity may be needed, my creative proposal to amend the Scientology case is only one among several possibilities to iron this out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• @AGK: re. "the subject must (...) edit the article non-pseudonymously" – the subject doesn't and mustn't edit the article per WP:COI. The subject writes his suggestions at the article talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• @JzG: I suppose the recent exchanges at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) (e.g. the IP at one point suggesting assistance from Wikipedia's "legal department") have made the "WP:IAR → business as usual" approach somewhat untenable. Proceeding without the IP being authenticated seems a bit unwise in these circumstances. I think OTRS people have handled this exemplary, don't know what they could have done better. The problem of the IP not being authenticated is not something that should have made a difference handling this at OTRS. But the problem exists now, for the handling of which I support the approach suggested by Newyorkbrad. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• How about: "User:Rick A. Ross has contacted the Arbitration Committee and indentifies as Rick Ross (consultant). All other user accounts or editors claiming or pretending to be Rick Alan Ross will be blocked."? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Made this a second proposal. Hope I didn't overstep a mark in doing this, maybe a clerk could assess this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Re. not the ArbCom's job to publically confirm a user's identity: acknowledged. However User:Rick A. Ross has come forward to the ArbCom, and that seems to affect the intent of "... User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected ..." which has the look and feel of having become unactionable now – only: it's not up to whatever average editor (like myself) to determine whether and how the original remedy is affected. ArbCom decided something many years ago, a follow-up declaration when a partial execution to that decision has been given (and all in all somewhat different to what the expectations of the remedy as formulated seemed to be) stills seems like a good idea to me (...to put editors like me sometimes editing in the contentious topic area without finding it particularily interesting at ease that no rash actions that would make the editing environment unstable again are imminent). What I think should be avoided is an editor showing up and typing "#redirect[[User:Rick Alan Ross]]" as the start of the User:Rick A. Ross ... an edit that would be covered by the old decision but seems angular to recent developements (of which there is no sign of ArbCom yet that these recent developements are recorded in the system). Similar, whatever admin blocking User:Rick A. Ross with the old ArbCom decision as pretext, could not be undone without recognizing the old decision has de facto been amended (I'd rather prefer it be amended by the ArbCom for which I created an opportunity here, than draw this to whatever dramaboard that would be less able to come to a conclusion in a sensitive area). A minimal update to the old decision seems to be something in this vein:

Follow-up on Remedy 26: User:Rick A. Ross has come forward to the Arbitration Committee, which makes "... User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected ..." unactionable as an enforcement action of the Scientology case as long as the editor edits with a single account.

Maybe add something like "This doesn't diminish any other application of the Scientology case, including, for instance, what has been said in remedy 8 (D) regarding conflicts of interest." to make sure, but this might be unwarranted and somewhat WP:BEANSy.

When I say "something in this vein", I mean: please find a more suitable wording if possible, don't just decline on a minor technicality that can easily be neutralized by casting it in the right form. Thanks, and I owe you an apology for not having been able to keep this shorter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: Re. "arbitrators are expressing their opinions about both proposals in the section above" [22] – trying to get some attention for the third one just above, which, I hope, nailed it; At least it tried to solve the issue with the second and explains why when a thing goes another direction than the actual wording of the ArbCom remedy I assume it is best to have it recorded somewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 173.72.57.223

I was instructed by Matthew at the Wikipedia Support Team to go to my bio page and use the Talk Page to discuss problems there. My name is Rick Alan Ross and some years ago I may have entered the name Rick A. Ross on Wikipedia. I have never gone by the name Rick Allen Ross. I have no general interest in Wikipedia other than the bio about me at Wikipedia (Rick Ross consultant). My concern is that my bio has been used as a convenient propaganda platform for those who don't like my work to attack me. My bio is not NPOV and has a great deal of biased POV editing. That editing is often misleading, intentionally omits certain relevant historical facts and information and generally reflects the slanted POV of certain anonymous editors at Wikipedia. I have repeatedly complained about this matter to the Wikipedia Support Team. Again, Matthew recommended that I specifically explain this at my bio Talk Page. I have followed his directions and posted my points of concern with supporting references and sources at the Talk Page per Mathew's instuctions. Now I am somehow here. Excuse me, but I don't understand all the Wikipedia protocols and rules. Please explain what need to be done to resolve this and address my concerns.

Rick Alan Ross 173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rick A. Ross

Statement by User:Rick Alan Ross

Statement by Mdann52

As the user involved with the OTRS ticket, let me clarify something here. As the original user has effectively outed themselves, from what I have seen, this appears to be genuine. They do not have access to either of the accounts, or the email addresses used to create them, and their passwords no longer work. I fail to see how this is an unreasonable amendment - they could always make a new account if needed. As they are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, we should, IMO, be a tad more cautious, and the seeming bad knowledge may well be genuine. Mdann52 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano, Roger Davies, and Courcelles: As you appear to have made comments before the above, you may wish to revisit this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

A BLP subject wants to provide input into the content of the article about himself, which he thinks has issues of balance and weighting. (I agree that the article has issues, although this isn't the place to go into them; I am also less than certain that this article should exist at all.) He seeks to adhere to our guidance about COI editing, which urges article subjects to disclose their identity and confine themselves to the talkpage, but is being tripped up because he is not an experienced Wikipedian and does not understand the fine points of our decision in this case from six years ago. My impression is that Mdann52 is correct and that the editor does not have access to his vintage-2008 accounts, perhaps because he does not recall the passwords, perhaps for some other reason. My suggestion is that an arbitrator reach out to Rick Ross directly, confirm his identity (if not already done), and explain exactly what is required of him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I'm very familiar with the standard OTRS advice to BLP subjects - if memory serves, I assembled the boilerplate myself - and this request is precisely in line with it. I don't think we need to amend anything, we can just WP:IAR since it is obvious who is behind the IP and there is no attempt at deception (quite the opposite). Guy (Help!) 09:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

It would seem trivial for OTRS to create a new account with a suitable name, in the normal way, and pass the details onto Mr Ross. Job  Done? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Scientology: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Why does he need to edit as an IP instead of using his account? Yunshui ^雲_水 11:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that the 2009 decision was never fully implemented; User:Rick A. Ross, the alt account, has never been blocked and doesn't appear to have been redirected to his main account. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline, in the absence of any reason for using an IP over an account. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And Decline amended version as well; there is no need for a case amendment or motion here. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not inclined to grant this request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. I see no reason to overturn the committee's 2009 decision that the subject must identify and edit the article non-pseudonymously. AGK [•] 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. I don't see why Alan can't use either of his accounts to edit Wikipedia: neither appears to be blocked... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Decline The purpose of the restriction was/is to prevent random IP editors turning up and claiming to be Rick A. Rosss or whatever as there had been complaints about impersonation.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per Roger. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Decline, noting that he has now contacted the committee. Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Decline both for what my colleagues have said about the first request, and the second as I don't feel it's our job to publically confirm a user's identity, and there are already sufficient community policy to deal with impersonations. If this user can't access previous accounts, that that's something we can sort out with the user by email. A motion to amend can be made by an Arb if he needs a new account, and it is authorized by the committee. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Decline both per DQ. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. LFaraone 14:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Scientology (May 2016)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Elvey at 01:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• Elvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

No user accounts to notify. IPs are ephemeral.

Statement by Elvey

The ruling states in relevant part (bolding mine):

8) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;

Despite this, edits to an article under discretionary sanctions as part of this case (and its talk page) are being made largely from a half dozen or so IPs, and the IPs are all on the same UK mobile ISP (except for one from a UK fixed line ISP) per an admin.

Clarification requested on this point : I read the ruling as saying editing needs to be from a single user account, not multiple anonymous IPs. Is it thus proper at this point to file for AE? (Why or why not?)

I think it is but am being cautious. It seems to me the appropriate enforcement action is simply to apply semi protection to the two pages. No need to deal with individual IPs. Support would be diffs from the page histories, though the page histories themselves are very readable for this purpose. There's a DS notice at the top of the talk page.

I'm refraining from characterizing the nature or motivation of edits or person(s); you are strongly urged do the same, so this can remain succinct and be dispatched quickly.

Follow-up: Thanks for the clarification and action, Doug Weller, Courcelles, and Callanecc. Part 2: As I noted above, there are anonymous edits to the talk pages too. The prohibition seems to clearly extend to the talk pages, per the "or discussions" language that I quote above, so I suggest that appropriate enforcement action here too is that these be semi'd as well: Talk:Richard_de_Mille, Talk:Scientology Talk:Carlos_Castaneda, with the rationale being something like: Per WP:ARBSCI.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Scientology: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

• To me it reads as a fairly clear prohibition against anonymous editing. Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Agree, noting that Scientology is indefinitely semi-protected. I've done that for this article. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Scientology (August 2016)

Original discussion Initiated by Sfarney at 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney

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

• Sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Prioryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• The Wordsmith
• Prioryman
• Dennis Brown

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney

• Cancel the Sfarney topic ban

Statement by Sfarney

Introduction

On June 1, 2016, I was Topic Banned from Scientology for one year on the authority of ARBSCI, Clause 5.1 (WP:SPA).[23][24] The Wordsmith imposed the ban. Though the ban cited ArbCom authority, Wordsmith agrees the foundation for that authority is incorrect. Additionally, Wordsmith concealed a personal conflict of interest on the topic and should not have administered the AE.

I respectfully ask this Committee to cancel or modify the topic ban.

Summary of events

1. Decided May 26: I filed an AE against Prioryman. Dennis Brown administered and filed a boomerang advisement against me.[25]
2. Decided June 1: Prioryman filed an AE against me. Wordsmith presided and sanctioned me under Remedy 5.1, ARBSCI, banning me from Scientology for a year.[26]
3. Decided June 6: I appealed the ban on ANI; the foundation for the ban was canceled but the ban remains.[27]

Reasons to modify sanction

1. Wordsmith agreed my account is not an SPA and struck that language from the ban.[28][29] When that justification was removed, ArbCom authority was removed, but Wordsmith maintains the topic ban.[30]

2. Sanction was based on evidence that later proved false -- the ban was significantly based on nonpublic information.

A significant portion of the ban rationale rests on nonpublic evidence that I have privately communicated to the Arbitration Committee, and consulted an Arb confidentially with the evidence before doing anything. In fact I had forgotten about Remedy 5.1; the Arbitrator I asked for advice suggested doing that ...[31]

Later, Wordsmith admitted the nonpublic evidence was not true.[32]

3. Wordsmith's ban was a do-over sanction. In the May 26 AE against Prioryman, Wordsmith wrote, "This request seems ripe for a Boomerang … at a minimum an admonishment to the filing editor."[33] Dennis Brown refused to admonish me and filed only an advisement. That action drew an effective line -- the conduct at issue was addressed by admin sanction.[34]

A week later (June 1), Wordsmith reached into the same timespan for evidence and imposed the topic ban, modifying the sanction imposed by Brown. Brown protested that his advisement was already in place.

Some of this is a little bit old. If this had happened after I gave my warning the other day, I would topic ban or block on the spot, but I did give a fairly detailed warning less than a week ago, so behavior since then is my primary focus. Not sure that to do here, would like to hear what other admins think.[35]

Thus, Wordsmith's sanction contradicts Modification by Administrators,[36] but Brown agreed to the modification because: "I trust The Wordsmith when they say they have private information that amply justified the action."[37]

When Wordsmith later admitted the "information" was false, the modification policy implicitly required Wordsmith to notify Brown of the error, and either drop the topic ban or seek permission again to modify Brown's sanction. But Wordsmith did not, and the anomaly was transformed from error to deceit.

4. Wordsmith had personal interest (not Wikipedia interest) in the ban. Editor Prioryman brought the complaint to AE and canvassed Wordsmith to preside.[38] Prioryman is the name-changed admin ChrisO,[39], involved and sanctioned in the ARBSCI.[40][41] An arbitrator selected by one party in a dispute is not appropriate or neutral, and selection of Wordsmith was not random. Wordsmith is personally and deeply involved with Scientology as a leader/organizer of the anti-Scientology group, Project Chanology.

Wordsmith provides the evidence on Wikipedia pages:

• Wordsmith lists Project Chanology among the half-dozen pages he has edited significantly.[42]
• Wordsmith was well-informed on the various Chanology events as they were happening and about to happen.[43]
• Wordsmith pondered his COI in a private to-do list -- he is aware of his COI problem.[44]
• The Wordsmith is/was the owner and sysop of the Boston Anonymous forums, a medium where Chanology is/was organized.

POSSIBLE COI DISCLOSURE: I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki. Take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, and always verify for yourselves. Firestorm Talk 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[45]

The word "crat" commonly means "bureaucrat", i.e., a manager, ruler.[46][47] The statement is signed by Firestorm, who was later renamed Wordsmith.[48] See also the header:[49]

The virulent partisanship of Anonymous/Chanology is told in the group's 2008 founding manifesto video, which promised to destroy and "systematically dismantle" the Church of Scientology.[50] See transcript.[51]

An owner/leader/organizer of a group sworn to promote or destroy the subject cannot neutrally administer the article(s) or involved editors. It is a clear COI. When I suggested Wordsmith had a COI, Wordsmith evasively denied he has a COI because he is "not a Scientologist":

Firstly personal experience is not relevant to WP:INVOLVED, but I will state for the record that I am not a Scientologist, have never been a Scientologist, and none of my family or close friends are Scientologists. I merely take an active interest in their history, policies and doctrine to consider myself a subject-matter expert, which is why I made that comment on the first AE.[52]

The statement changes from evasion to deceit with these words: "I merely take an active interest ..." In addition to owner/leader/manager/crat of the Chanology forum, Wordsmith was apparently theorist and ideologue of Chanology:

It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists.[53]

5. Supplementary info: Another editor has submitted a letter to ArbCom with supplementary evidence on this and related matters. I have forwarded that letter to ArbCom as well to ensure it is linked to this case.

Conclusion

I respectfully ask for the Arb who recommended the ban[54] to recuse from this appeal.

As shown above, the ban was imposed without reason, authority, or justification. It was based on a false issue and false evidence, and administered by an admin who had a significant hidden COI on the topic. I ask for the ban to be cancelled.

Subsequent comment

• This appeal shows that the sanction violates points 1, 2, and 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators, a text of which I was not previously aware. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• The "community" in the community appeal did not see the improper COI and involvement of Wordsmith. Conferring discretionary powers presumes impartial judgment. The information above impugns that impartiality and shows that discretion was compromised.
• The community also did not know that Prioryman was ChrisO sanctioned in the original ARBSCI for abuse of admin trust on the same topic.
• Process: the community did not understand that the ban was imposed out of process.
• Process: The text Appeals and modifications lists three levels of appeal. It does not say that the levels are mutually exclusive, as Thomson argued, and it does not say that level 2 obviates 3, as Brown suggests. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• A caring reader will find a remarkable contrast between the evidence I have provided and Wordsmith's current statement of involvement in Chanology.
  Wordsmith then: "I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki."[55]
  Wordsmith now: "I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with Project Chanology, a minor capacity running their internal wiki ... my role so minor that I had forgotten about it." (below)
  The arbitrators will decide whether that meets Wikipedia's standard of admin integrity. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Addressing the comments from Salvio: To consider abuse of discretion, one must consider the circumstances and the conduct for which the ban was imposed. But none of that has been discussed here, so how could anyone be "satisfied" that discretion was not abused? That satisfaction must rest on the discretion and integrity of the admin imposing the ban, and as you are shown here in Wordsmith's own words, that integrity is well worth questioning. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• @Salvio: On 17 May 2016, less than two weeks before sanctioning me with a topic ban, Wordsmith deleted a private page named "COI".[56] I cannot recover the contents of that page, but maybe you can, and maybe you will find it relevant to the credibility of Wordsmith's claims of forgetting about the year he spent owning and operating the Chanology forum. Wordsmith linked to that page in 2010 and 2011 comments about Scientology edits and issues, so it was on his mind at that time.[57][58]
• Wordsmith has a history of shoot-from-the-hip accusing other editors of being "OSA" (Church of Scientology employees), then apologizing and backing down.[59][60] Such he did with me (see "nonpublic information" above), apparently GLEANED from an anti-Scientology chat page comment that appeared about the same time that he filed his nonpublic evidence with Arb. (Search for "I wonder if the editor") Are these random accusations consistent with proper demeanor for an admin? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Let us never forget that this whole incident stems from my requirement that a Scientology article follow standard Wikipedia editing and sourcing practice, as I have required in multiple other articles on multiple other topics. That is all that I have ever demanded. For this I am sanctioned by the partisans. I have shown irrefutably that Wordsmith is among the partisans, and that his representation of his role in Wikipedia and the world at large is not completely truthful. No one can say that I have broken any of the canons of Wikipedia except that I refused to accept canvassed consensus to violate Wikipedia policies. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• The web page says "The arbcom-l mailing list ... can also be used by any user as a means of contacting the Committee privately". But the autoresponse states, "The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list". One of these statements may be in error, and hopefully it is the latter. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• On 11 August 2009‎, Wikipedia Commons User:Thrawn was renamed to User:The Wordsmith.[61]
• Wordsmith does not deny that he is the same person in all cases cited, but calls my facts, "character assassination". Truly, he has worked to portray an honest admin. And just as truly, full disclosure of all relevant facts would "assassinate" that character. To all those who judge these matters, please take note: The statements of fact are specific, exact, and denotative. The denials are general, vague, and connotative.
• And now Wordsmith canvasses the same WP:TEAM to argue his case. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to DamOTclese: Though no one has ever stated a cause for topic banning me (without later retracting that statement), the apparent reason is that I argued against consensus when that consensus violated Wiki policy. Recently, I have learned that that "consensus" was subject to off-Wiki canvassing by someone with the user name "DamOTclese".[62] (archived at [63] in case of deletion)
• Reply to Wordsmith: "intent to harass at the very least, and attempted WP:OUTING"? That is a clever spin -> aspersion, but really it is out-to-lunch. I cannot control what others put on my talk page, but under the ban, my comments are regulated. So if others want to discuss forbidden subjects with me, such as this proceeding, I must use private email. For the logical, the simplicity of the syllogism is this:
  • If I knew Laval, I would not need to ask his email.
  • But I do ask his email, hence I do not know him.
  • Since I do not know Laval, I cannot trust him, and I could not commit to him one of the dreaded sins of which you accuse me.
• Hence, Wordsmith, your aspersions are utterly without foundation. I have provided solid proof of your improper conduct as an admin and your improper entanglements. In rebuttal, you have nothing but vague dismissals and fragile speculation of me.
  • You have prima face evidence of editor DamOTclese canvassing off-Wiki for "consensus" against me -- Have you acted on it?
  • You have solid evidence provided elsewhere of editor Feoffer being a true WP:SPA in violation of wp:ARBSCI.[64] -- Have you acted on that?
  • You undoubtably know that Prioryman is the same person as ChrisO,[65] an admin severely sanctioned with de-sysop at the ARBCI[66][67] and has now returned to his old tricks, citing improper sources for outrageous statements, cherrypicking, attacking other editors, and so on -- even in your presence. List of samples here,[68]
• But you, Wordsmith, take no action on any of those situations -- possibly because as you have stated elsewhere, you share their personal opinions of the Scientology,[69] which are quite well defined along a certain vector.[70] Instead, you canvass that band of brothers to your assistance here, as though they were all upstanding Wikipedia citizens. And in your view, perhaps they are. 05:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) (updated with references for Prioryman statements 15:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC))
• Update: According to a message I have just received, additional evidence has just been sent to Salvio showing that -- contrary to The Wordsmith's representations here -- The Wordsmith was involved in a leading role in Chanology demonstrations just a few years ago. Hopefully, Salvio will share that evidence with the other Arbs. I have not personally seen the evidence. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Prioryman: Prioryman asks me to address my own conduct. Prioryman's first item is the ban on the Rick Ross topic. That was a specific BLP error which will not be repeated. I have honored that ban to the fullest. This current issue should not be a redo of that incident, and Prioryman errs in attempt to make it so.
• Apart from the first, the offenses cited in the AE[71] are correct Wikipedia edits, as explained in the rebuttal below.
  1. 18:05, 20 May 2016‎ Hijacks a GA review request and turns it into a rant against the article's content (see [72]) I reviewed the GA nomination strictly according to the rules as I understood them and as they are written, requiring that I had "[n]ot ... made significant contributions to the article prior to the review." I understood that since all my edits to the article had been reverted, I was fully qualified to review the article, which I did candidly, impartially, and according to the rules of Wikipedia. The phrase "Significant contributions" (in the rules)[73] is not synonymous with "significant edits" on the blanking page.[74] I still hold that given all the flaws in the article enumerated below, it is not a candidate for GA.
  2. 16:26, 11 April 2016 One of several deletions of sourced content with a bogus rationale. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named) Names are not required by WP:BLP when the target is obvious. Wikipedia is could legally be considered a single work. An accusation of criminal conduct against Scientology is an accusation against the officials, and Wikipedia sports a List of Scientology officials. The list is small and finite, and WP:BLPGROUP is clear: "When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." This article did/does not. I removed text that failed to meet WP:BLP. We cannot use cherry-picked quotes, primary sources, or blogs. In this case, the article parroted speculation in the Ortega blog to accuse Scientology of intimidating people with death threats in present time policy. No secondary RS supports the accusation. The deleted material also contained a WP:cherrypicking quote from a primary source in support. This violates WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple solid secondary sources for challenged statements. Removing the material was proper.
  3. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named) Erroneous link in the AE. The edit of that date[75] cited the Ortega blog for an interview of some person by a Food & Drug officer. The Ortega blog spun the interviewee's statements into a government "report" of criminal conduct, and so did Wikipedia article. The blog then speculates about church policy, and the article echoes that speculation as Encyclopedic Truth. I removed it as an improper source (primary, blog, no secondary source). Then the article cites to another primary source, The Auditor, alleging it to contain a published order to kill a list of people. Again, a primary source without secondary and I removed it. Leave that work for Scientology's RS critics, who are many. If multiple secondary sources don't cover it, neither do we. WP:REDFLAG states:

     Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[12] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
     (x) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
     (x) challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
     (x) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
     (x) claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.​

     ​ Because of multiple secondary sources don't cover it, it probably is misunderstood by the editor or simply not true. Feoffer added an image that he took from some German blog with unknown authenticity. I had it removed with an ANI request under the WP:COPYVIO rule because I could not persuade the TEAM that the authenticity could not be verified and was a real problem.
  4. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotation from primary source) This edit does not involve a quote from a primary source.
  5. 17:58, 26 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotations from primary sources) We cannot use primary sources to make outrageous claims. WP:REDFLAG. The text removed includes the exceptional claim that Hubbard preached murder as a form of therapy and bases the claim on primary sources (recorded lectures). The editors even cherrypicked words and phrases to construct a statement contrary to the recording (on the blog) that they were supposedly transcribing. The article included a link to an anonymous post on Wikileaks as though it were a WP:RS. The text continued to cite another primary source to make it appear that advising people to commit suicide was church doctrine. Removing this material was a proper Wikipedia edit.
  6. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above. One of several personal attacks against a source's author in an apparent attempt to undermine its credibility (see Dead agenting) Ortega's blog is not an RS by our rules. In the RSN,[76] Nick-D, PermStrump, and Grayfell agreed that Ortega's blog was not a proper source for these claims.
  7. 10:01, 17 April 2016 As above
  8. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above
  9. 18:17, 25 April 2016 Refuses to discuss alternative wording with other editors There is no point discussing "alternate wording" for statements that are not properly sourced.
• Most of the complaints at the AE were that I objected to the Ortega blog as an RS. But Ortega's blog was later removed from the article. Because I was right?
• This is the complete list of complaints on which I was banned by Wordsmith. Consensus editing should not be a process of hanging the dissenters until only the ayes remain. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Response to GorillaWarfare: Thank you for the explanation. Given Wordsmith's substantially incorrect statement to you (in contrast to the facts) and your limited statement in response, I strike the request for you to recuse and welcome your participation. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Earl King, Jr.: Are you referring to the successful efforts of a group of editors to restore the article on the Zeitgeist Movement to existence, a year or so after you successfully deleted it? As I remember, you called a half dozen other editors "tendentious", after you called them other things like "holocaust denier".[77]

Final Address to the Arbitration Committee: It looks now as though you will ban me to keep me silent on these issues. I remind you of Caesar's advice to judges:

When you judge fairly and according to the law, you bring honor to yourselves, you strengthen the law, and you bring peace to the land. But when you judge unfairly, when you favor yourselves and your friends, you bring contempt on yourselves and you erode the law; and ultimately, you destroy the society you were hired to govern.

In this proceeding, you were shown a number of outrages against Wikipedia:

1. The R2-45 article slanders a number of living people with outrageous claims based on cherrypicking primary sources, a blog, and an anonymous Wikileaks submission in violation of WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:BLPGROUP, and WP:REDFLAG.
2. The article was primarily constructed by
   1. Feoffer, a demonstrable WP:SPA
   2. Prioryman, the same editor who was heavily sanctioned in 2009 as the admin “ChrisO” for exactly this type of work
3. Consensus for that article was canvassed from off-wiki by DamOTclese.
4. Prioryman canvassed The Wordsmith to preside over an AE against me because I objected to the editing practices and sources, and attempted to rectify it.
5. The Wordsmith had been for years heavily WP:INVOLVED in Scientology, both off-Wiki as a leader and organizer of Chanology and on-Wiki as a primary ("significant"[78]) contributor to the article Project Chanology.
6. Indisputable evidence shows that The Wordsmith lied to this committee about the extent of his involvement with Chanology and Scientology.

If the Arbitration Committee members decide they will do nothing about any of this except punish me for "significant disruption" of this operation, if they so publicly practice selective enforcement of Wikipedia policies, they will bring contempt on Arbcom from the editors in Wikipedia-ville, damage the reputation of Wikipedia with the public, and chart (or are they continuing along?) a course of corruption from which Wikipedia might never recover.

It is a choice you should consider carefully. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• A totally independent editor echoes my objections to the same article: In reviewing the article R2-45 for GA status, User:Midnightblueowl fails the article and explains (in part):

  More seriously, a lot of the sourcing here isn't in keeping with what Wikipedia requires. Whereas an academic study of a subject can use and cite primary sources (original lectures, a promotional video etc), Wikipedia can't. Wikipedia has to rely largely on secondary and tertiary sources. So, if we have an academic publication saying "In a 1961 lecture, he said" then we can cite that academic, secondary source. What we can't really do is cite an (unpublished) original source, but that's what is going on a lot here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[79]

  Please note that the unacceptable sourcing is "going on a lot here." That is the same objection I have been voicing since April -- and notably, one of the same editing violations for which Prioryman (aka ChrisO) was sanctioned in 2009. And note also, the reviewer's criticism is followed by yet another WP:IDHT from DamOTclese, asserting that "dozens" of editors (some of whom he personally canvassed[80]) liked the article. Perhaps the Committee will take a new look at this situation wherein my real, factual, Wiki-policy objections are being sanctioned with a topic-ban and characterized as a "significant disruption", while the same WP:TEAM of editors cannot understand the problem. Who should be editing Wikipedia? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

There are a number of factual errors and misrepresentations above. However, I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with Project Chanology, in a minor capacity running their internal wiki (as I was the only one familiar with MediaWiki software) for a few months from 2008 to 2009. I must commend Sfarney, as he keeps better track of my own past than I do. The site (and indeed, the entire movement) had been defunct for years. I hadn't mentioned it because it was so long ago and my role so minor that I had forgotten about it. Does minor participation in an activist group 7-8 years ago open up issues of WP:INVOLVED? I'll leave that to the Arbitrators to decide, and will respect that decision.

However, I do still believe that my topic ban was based on sound judgment and not bias. Consensus at AE and again at the noticeboard agreed with it. Sfarney's hostility and poor behavior in both instances further reinforced that belief. I stand by my sanction, and I do believe that the community has already heard this appeal and upheld it on the merits. I don't see what another bite at the apple is gong to achieve, but I welcome input. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Sfarney: Your aspersions are without merit. The diffs you link are from before I was an Administrator, and there was in fact a rather large sock farm manipulating article content at the time. The user subpage you mentioned contains nothing of interest that I haven't already acknowledged, and I deleted it at the same time as a number of other subpages. I hadn't used it in years, and it contained some personal information that I did not want publicly available. Further, I do not visit or use WhyWeProtest, and had no idea it was still running. That thread had no bearing on events onwiki. I also find the depths to which you are plumbing my years-old editing history in a poor attempt at "opposition research" to be highly disturbing, and I think it telling that all you have been able to dig up is a few diffs of mildly rude comments from 2009 before I was an admin (and when the wiki was a very different place, and WP:ARBSCI and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo found that there actually were Scientologists attempting to manipulate content) combined with casting some unfounded aspersions. Your increasingly-desperate attempts to link me to some bizarre conspiracy is extremely troubling, to say the least, and you seem to be justifying the sanction further with every edit. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Prioryman Damotclese Feoffer because the same allegations of collusion have been made against them as well. @Arbs: I would like to direct your attention to this discussion on Sfarney's talkpage, which seems to indicate intent to harass at the very least, and attempted WP:OUTING at the worse. The fact that Sfarney seems to be plumbing the depths of ancient history from 2009-2010, both here and on Commons, in an attempt to "dig up dirt" on me demonstrates that my record is squeaky clean and these conspiracy theories are becoming more and more unhinged. If they had anything showing bias, they wouldn't have to go back 7 years to find it. I have been subject to these aspersions being cast since the beginning of this SNAFU, and I would appreciate if Arbcom would issue an injunction instructing Sfarney and Laval to stop this attempted character assassination. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

Sfarney is doing an excellent imitation of a squid, blowing out clouds of black ink to hide the real issue at hand here: did the evidence of misconduct in the original AE request merit a topic ban? He doesn't address his own conduct above in any way other than to deny that anyone has ever found fault with it ("No one can say that I have broken any of the canons of Wikipedia"), which is obviously ludicrous in the light of the multiple critical threads he has attracted on his talk page regarding a variety of topics and his previous topic ban from Rick Alan Ross. If the topic ban was justified - and it clearly was - then everything else is moot and mere tendentious wikilawyering of the kind which those who have interacted with him have sadly become accustomed to. Prioryman (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I don't expect to comment further unless this account is pinged by an arb. I doubt it will be needed.

This is all moot. The community upheld the ban, any cause of action has to be about that WP:AN confirmation, where the community essentially took possession of the ban. Unless you can show fault in that discussion, there is nothing to talk about. Speaking as someone who tried DESPERATELY to not topic ban you, who choose an admonition the first time you were brought to AE, and has watched you implode since then, I suggest simply waiting the ban out. The community upheld the ban. That the process was sloppy doesn't really matter, we aren't a bureaucracy. Farmer Brown (talk) (aka:Dennis Brown) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ian.thomson

I have to bring up Robert McClenon's statement given here that "continuing to appeal is vexatious litigation." Yes, editors should be allowed to appeal bans but the community is also allowed to affirm those bans and should not have to continually answer "yes, one year is still one year" every few weeks in a different spot each time. Standard discretionary sanctions have been allowed since 2012, the ban was converted to that, and uninvolved community consensus affirms that ban. To try to appeal on a technicality that has already been ironed over is nothing but Wiki-lawyering. Honestly, at this point, the only room I'm seeing between modifying the ban (which I can't see happening) and blocking Sfarney is Sfarney withdrawing this ASAP. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment by DamOTclese

I'm not sure why I keep getting dragged in to comment on this difficult editor, this should be a no-brainer. When Wikipedia has problem Scientology editors, one either (1) Topic bans the editor/sock or (2) blocks their IP addresses. When there is extensive WP:IDHT and WP:NH and the same issues which have repeatedly been resolved keep getting dredged-up over and over again, we have procedures for a final resolution to the problem editors which do that, and in editor Sfarney's case, a topic ban is the obvious solution, and any appeal should be dismissed.

At the same time we must not discourage volunteer editors from donating their time and effort to Wikipedia to improve articles, so editors and admins need to work hard to convince problem editors that they must stop being problems while also asking them to "move on" and find more productive use of their volunteer time. Editor time has value, we don't want to lose editors that contribute beneficially!

Also editors and admins who look at problem editors' behavior also need to understand Scientology's history and contentious behavior to some degree inasmuch as if they want to expend some time understanding the motivations of Scientology-based problem editors, looking up "Dev-T" (Develop Traffic) and Scientology's written procedures on "Outproducing" sources of factual, informative, testable, falsifiable information on Scientology -- which Wikipedia certainly is -- helps understand some of the WP:IDHT and WP:NH behavior.

We need Sfarney to stay working on Wikipedia while at the same time we need him or her to stop wasting other editor's valuable time. We need to be polite and professional when imposing topic bans (after being polite and professional addressing editor's proposed text updates and issues) and if that does not work, we need account bans and/or IP bans, that's how we resolve things. If Sfarney does not understand why he was topic banned, that is a failing with other editors and admins not being able to convey why. That he's appealing his topic ban seems to indicate that we have failed to impart such understanding.

Don't remove the topic ban yet please, don't ban Sfarney. We need all the editors we can get here. Damotclese (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Salvio, where precisely would be the bar? Because I am willing to lay money down that if an (otherwise perfectly respectable) admin was found to have been a scientologist and sanctioned someone in the scientology topic area, this would have been considered 'involved' and overturned within 5 minutes. I will paraphrase (slightly) my comment from the ANI: "I have a few books on cars. That wouldnt disqualify me from closing contentious discussions on cars. If I owned a series of extremely hard to get and in-depth documents (primary and secondary) on morris minors, declared I was the most knowledgeable wikipedian about morris minors AND had previously declared another editor was correct in their morris minor edits - I should not be closing any dispute (in my capacity as an administrator) related to said morris minors." If Sfarney is correct in his evidence of Wordsmith's previous associations with anti-scientology groups, I am not actually sure what would actually satisfy you regarding 'involved' in an off-wiki sense. Can you honestly say if the POV's were reversed, we would be here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Sfarney's hostility and poor behavior are dominating his defense. Having worked with him in other area's where he has been extremely difficult and uncooperative I suggest, keep the full year or block him from editing as Slade Farney is not showing any sign of stopping tendentious editing in general. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Uphold --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• A couple of comments. First, a person appealing a sanction before us may argue that the original sanction was flawed, even if upheld at AE or AN, because ArbCom retains final jurisdiction over all actions taken on our behalf. However, the standard ArbCom has historically used when reviewing appeals has been that of abuse of discretion. Therefore, the relevant question is, was The Wordsmith's imposition of a topic ban an abuse of discretion? At first glance, it does not appear that was the case. The fact that he based his topic ban on remedy 5.1 rather than on remedy 4 (authorising DS for the topic area) has no bearing on the validity of the sanction itself, because, assuming there was evidence of sufficient misconduct to justify the imposition of a discretionary sanction in the first place, then such a mistake should be considered a mere clerical error, which can be rectified without any formalities. On review of the original thread and of the discussion following sfarney's appeal, I am satistied that there is enough evidence of misconduct to justify the imposition of a topic ban.

  The question then becomes whether The Wordsmith was involved. Again, historically, when involvement has been argued on the basis of off-wiki conduct, the bar has ben set rather high, for various reasons, including a desire to prevent both opposition research and a chilling effect on admins. In this case, in my opinion, that high bar is far from reached.

  For all these reasons, as far as I'm concerned, this appeal should be rejected. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Having reviewed the evidence we were sent in private, I am confirming my vote. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just noting that the "supplementary info" Sfarney said was sent by email to arbcom does not seem to have arrived, although it would have to be very compelling indeed to change my opinion based on the public evidence already posted here. Sfarney, could you resend ASAP so we can wrap this up? Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sfarney: We received your emails, thanks. You got that message because the mailing list holds posts from non-subscribers for moderation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Uphold - having read the evidence above and that submitted privately, I agree with Salvio here. The ban should be upheld. I also do not believe that The Wordsmith shuld be considered involved. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Uphold Exactly per Doug. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment There are a few other ARCAs and a case request for me to get through so it may take me some time before I can go through this in detail, but I'd like to quickly address this part of Sfarney's section, which was brought to my attention earlier today: I respectfully ask for the Arb who recommended the ban[81] to recuse from this appeal. I clarified earlier with The Wordsmith that he was referring to me in the linked comment, and I think also that there is some miscommunication surrounding that conversation. Wordsmith contacted me in May with concerns about Sfarney, and sent a few links. The conversation continued as follows (posted with Wordsmith's permission):

IRC log
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
31/05/16 10:58<[Wordsmith]> I'm not sure if that's conclusive enough for an indef, or if a regular admin should even be doing that rather than an Arbblock 31/05/16 10:59<[Wordsmith]> The editor's contribs show extensive pro-Scientology POV pushing 31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> The easiest option is probably to TBAN per r an indef, or if a regular admin should even be doing that rather than an Arbblock │10:59 <[Wordsmith]> The editor's contribs show extensive pro-Sc 31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> whoa 31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> bad paste 31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> TBAN per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas 31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> Assuming he fits those criteria 31/05/16 11:02<GorillaWarfare> But you could also send your evidence to ArbCom and we could look into a block/ban 31/05/16 11:02<[Wordsmith]> He's made some contributions to chemistry, but the bulk are Scientology-related 31/05/16 11:04<[Wordsmith]> I'm more than willing to ban under that SPA remedy and DS, I just won't mention the connection. I'll send the evidence to Arbcom, and if he appeals I'll put it on hold pending examinatin of private evidence 31/05/16 11:06<GorillaWarfare> Sounds good 31/05/16 11:06<[Wordsmith]> Thanks for the advice 31/05/16 11:07<GorillaWarfare> No problem :)

Given that my only involvement was to show Wordsmith the remedy in the Scientology case that authorized future sanctions, and say he could use it assuming [Sfarney] fits those criteria, I'm not seeing a need to recuse here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, have had some time to review this request, the initial discussion, and private evidence. My opinion is that the ban on Sfarney should be upheld. I also do not believe there is merit to the claims that The Wordsmith is breaching the expectations of administrators with regards to INVOLVEment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Uphold. There is evidence of significant disruption (that GA review? bizarre) on Sfarney's part, and, on the other hand, the supposed involvement of Wordsmith does not reach a level where their objectivity is to be distrusted. Besides, if the community upholds a topic ban, it takes serious evidence for us to overturn; I don't see that evidence, despite a plethora of innuendo being emailed to us. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• My view is very similar to Salvio's. When looking at DS appeals I consider whether DS procedure was followed and whether it was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. Regarding DS procedure while The Wordsmith did originally place it under remedy 5.1, the sanction could be a DS action just the same (as Sfarney had been notified) so that isn't a concern. The ban appears to be reasonable and within normal administrative discretion, remembering that areas subject to DS have been determined to be intractable and that 'harsher' sanctions are generally used. I agree with my colleagues that The Wordsmith is not involved here. Therefore I decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Scientology (January 2022)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by GeneralNotability at 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

• GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Not applicable.

Statement by GeneralNotability

I ask that ArbCom clarify whether remedy 2 of the Scientology case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is still in effect. As far as I can tell, it is de facto not enforced - this quarry (credit to AntiCompositeNumber for the query) shows that there haven't been rangeblocks mentioning Scientology since 2010, with one individual IP block in 2011 (most were applied in 2009 following the case), and most of the blocks should have expired in 2014 since they were set for five-year durations. Further, the IP ranges assigned to the Church of Scientology have changed since the case; the church owns ASNs 7914 and 25823 (credit to wizzito for identifying the relevant ASNs) and none of the ranges owned by those ASNs are currently blocked. Blocking these IPs to enforce the remedy is trivial, but I believe ArbCom should consider whether this remedy is still necessary to prevent disruption. Given that the bans expired years ago but we have not seen significant disruption, I'm inclined to say that it is not (and that our normal community processes, like COIN, should be enough to contain disruption if it should resume in the future), but I've got no problem with applying the blocks if the Committee believes they are necessary. I just don't like being in this in-between state of "remedy is on the books but is not being enforced".

Statement by Wizzito

Actually, looking at the query linked, the last 2 IPs blocked for Scientology reasons were 216.60.18.40 (registered to the Bank of Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma; blocked 1 month in November 2018) and 138.130.234.8 (registered to Telstra Internet in Sydney, Australia; blocked 24 hours June 2018). 92.37.9.164 (registered to A1 in Ljubljana, Slovenia) was the last block mentioning this ArbCom decision. Neither of these are registered to Scientology. wizzito | say hello! 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's other active-looking Scientology IPs I missed:

• 66.134.120.117, registered to Moxon & Kobrin, blocked 3 times, only made 1 edit in 2005.
• 207.90.4.0/24, registered to the Flag Service Organization, no edits since 2010.
• 209.33.168.184/29, registered to Scientology in Dallas, never edited.
• 64.206.134.192/29, registered to Scientology in New York, never edited.
• 24.96.32.80/28, registered to Scientology in Clearwater, FL, never edited.
• 69.212.91.200/29, registered to Scientology in Plano, TX, never edited.
• 69.104.202.208/29, Scientology in San Francisco, never edited.
• 67.127.237.40/29, also in San Fran, never edited.
• 67.125.78.232/29, also in San Fran, never edited.
• 64.109.41.152/29, in Plano, never edited.
• 63.199.209.128/29, also in San Fran, hasn't edited since 2009.
• 70.90.200.8/29, in Albuquerque, never edited.
• 208.16.163.192/26, in LA, never edited. wizzito | say hello! 22:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And it goes on and on...

• 198.95.10.0/24, registered to "sys000.scientology.org", never edited
• 198.77.154.0/23, last edit in 2019, last Scientology edit in 2016
• 12.9.238.0/23, Scientology in San Jacinto, CA, no edits since 2009

There are a bit more than this, but overall, my point is that this rule is outdated and these IPs barely edit or don't at all (at least anonymously, I'd 100 percent support a checkuser for some of these ranges) wizzito | say hello! 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Izno I feel as if that would be useless, though, my point here is that these IPs are barely active, haven't been reblocked, and some are reassigned by now. wizzito | say hello! 22:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If active disruption ever happens from any Scientology IP in the future, we can just block those as necessary and maybe per 5.1. wizzito | say hello! 22:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I've been an active watcher (and sometimes reverter) at the top level Scientology article. I think that there is still some more wiki-saavy efforts by them there but the old IP protection is probably not needed or relevant. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Scientology: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse, obviously. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Absent evidence of disruption within the last year or two, I would be fine repealing remedy 2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• This one has been in the back of my head notes as a likely candidate for removal as I believe the community processes are in place to take care of problematic edits. There is also remedy 5.1 should it be needed (or perhaps that one could also be on the chopping block). I might also consider reframing the motion in terms of a ban on editing from the church rather than specifically targeting the IP addresses (which will and obviously have shifted as presented). --Izno (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• I am also open to rescinding the remedy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• I am certainly open to this and Scientology DS had been one of the DS that I have suggested be rescinded in the (hopefully soon to be revived but for now stalled) DS reform. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to hold off for more input before voting, but from what I see here I'm inclined to agree that this can go. 2009 was a very different landscape than what we have now, I think COIN and other community measures can probably handle any brushfires that may pop up in this subject area. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Per above, give it a bit of time in case anyone else has relevant information to share, but it looks like this has outlived its usefulness. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it sounds like our usual procedures could handle such disruption if it recurs. --BDD (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia of 2008 is very different to Wikipedia of 2022. I believe the community should be able to manage disruption from IPs and since there does not appear to be any recent, I'm happy for this to be removed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Monitoring & trailing Scientology's IPs from 12 years ago is about as constructive as bemoaning their undermining of anon.penet.fi a decade before that. Time to move on. Any WP:COI can be dealt with under normal procedures. Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Scientology

Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 11:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed, per comments above. Any disruption from IPs in this topic area can be handled without this specific measure. – bradv^🍁 17:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Donald Albury 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
6. BDD (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
7. An easy one. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
10. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
12. Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
13. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
14. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
15. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scientology (February 2022)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Scientology Arbitrator views and discussion

Support

1. 1 topic ban and 3 page protections since 2010. Current disruption seems like it could be handled using the standard enforcement actions - for instance there is no indication that the indefinite page protections would be changed if they were not "protected" by DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
7. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
8. BDD (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
10. Amusing and reassuring that we have proven to outlast the disruption here CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• Barkeep49 Double checking, the intent in the motion indicates to me that those indefinite page protections will remain as DS actions until someone appeals those successfully or we move to remove them. Is that a correct reading? --IznoPublic (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: Not Barkeep but that's my understanding. The relevant administrators (Oshwah for Dianetics, El C for Nathan Rich) may also choose to modify the actions or abrogate the AE status of those protections. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno the intent is to do as Kevin suggests. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientology Community discussion

• Abrogate — I learn a new word! Anyway, if the relevant notices reflect the rescinding, I think that suffices. Though, in the case of Nathan Rich, there's both a {{Ds/talk notice|topic=blp}} and a {{Ds/talk notice|topic=sci}}, neither of which added by me, btw. Also, for some reason, the sci DS is framed inside of the WikiProject Scientology notice (that's marked inactive), I just noticed. I don't know what's happening. El_C 20:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Honestly, I am rather surprised no one has objected to this? I'm really reluctant to see Scientology get the axe (being the one time I think its disuse is a sign that it is working rather than the the opposite), but I guess I am alone in that thought since more people objected to Ancient Egyptian race controversy being removed than this one. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• @MJL: I was amazed when I saw the report that we had so few problems these days from it. While I share your nervousness on what might happen with its removal (and also your "this is not my normal position"), we probably should remove it on the basis that it no longer is "exceptional", just an appreciable risk. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.