This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to openly discuss Cirt's past identity

1) Cirt's behavior in the Scientology-series articles is one of the linchpins of this case. Cirt can be accused of taking WP:OWNership of the series to a perhaps unprecedented level. No discussion of Cirt can be complete without reference to his previous identity as he seamlessly carried on editing in the same articles, with the same POV, and, arguably, with the same tactics in his new identity as he did in his old. His previous identity has already been specifically named in various locations and comments at his WP:RFAR indicated that editors unfamiliar with his history had no trouble divining his previous identity - it is an open "secret". Little is gained by continuing to cloud his past except that a confirmed POV-warrior gets a whitewash. It is not my intent to bring up a bunch of unrelated material from his previous identity but I think that those trying to show a pattern in Cirt's behavior should be allowed to show the complete pattern. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is there some reason why this would not ordinarily be permitted? Kirill ^(prof) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The security matter has been resolved. My previous account was Smee, renamed from Smeelgova. Discuss them if you like. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You "forgot" one of your other user names, minimum. Please provide a full list. Misou (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt is a distraction here. Some of his edits and arguments should be brought up at WP:RS/N, and that's about it. His involvement has been a net benefit to Wikipedia. With his apparent blessings above, I see no need to suppress his prior account's editing history, but it's moot. --GoodDamon 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt is not a distraction and to say that marginalizes the editors that are in the process of presenting evidence. The Shutterbug issue and the Cirt issue are not related other than by the fact that they both relate to the Scientology articles and both fall under the decision of the COFS arb in one way or another. They were presented at WP:AE as unrelated issues. Durova concatenated them when opening this arbitration and the arbitrators agreed to take this case without limiting Durova's scope. I am sure that the arbitrators can manage to deal with both aspects of the case without getting unduly distracted. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDamon is obviously trying to make this ArbCom an anti-scientology issue. Misou (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion to undelete Cirt's past accounts' talk pages

2) Motion to undelete Cirt's past accounts talk pages, with the proviso that prior to the undeletion, any text that may disclose Cirt's identity are kept deleted. This, to afford editors full transparency in these proceedings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see how the talk pages of accounts which have not been used in over a year would be relevant here. Is it expected that there might be comments which would have some bearing on the present matter? Kirill ^(prof) 04:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support -- it's considerably more difficult to determine whether Cirt engaged in any WP:BLP violations with his prior accounts in the absence of the talk page histories. John254 04:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ns1.Scientology.org confirmed socks are banned

3) See: Jpgordon Checkuser confirmation, and with this additional evidence here, these users are banned for abuse of role accounts, sockpuppetry, and disruption of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: Jpgordon Checkuser confirmation of technical sockpuppetry. This should be processed by the Arbs rather than AE noise as it's a previous issue as Jpgordon noted from the last instances of abuse and the previous RFAR. rootology (C)(T) 04:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be something to be voted upon in the final decision, not as a "temporary" injunction, which would cease to be in effect at the end of the case. Daniel (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

User:David Gerard suspended from ArbCom mailing list for duration of case

1) I move that David Gerard be suspended from the Arbitration Committee mailing list for the duration of this case. As maintainer of an anti-Scientology Web site, I think it is clear he cannot be impartial regarding Scientology-related issues. His participation on the private mailing list would cast a pall over any Committee findings and involve the appearance of impropriety. *** Crotalus *** 19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is certainly unprecedented, and somewhat irrelevant to boot: we have a private list for the sitting arbitrators, to which David is obviously not subscribed. Kirill ^(prof) 02:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This would be a new precedent, if accepted. Charles Matthews did not recuse from the ArbCom list during Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, for example, despite being the initiator of the RFAR and a named party. Not sure where I stand on this. Crolatus, could you articulate more clearly under what circumstances you believe recusal from the ArbCom mailing list would be appropriate during a case? And would you consider an alternate solution in which a temporary ArbCom list were created for purposes of discussing a particular case, so that a person who has COI in one case could continue to provide useful input on unrelated matters? Durova^Charge! 20:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point, Crotalus. I think what Kirill is saying is the Committee already has a list where David Gerard doesn't have access, so that makes this proposal redundant. Durova^Charge! 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see why this is so controversial. People with a strong stake in one side of an issue shouldn't be involved in confidential deliberations over that issue which are supposed to be conducted in an impartial manner. I'm certainly not saying that anyone with an opinion on the matter has to recuse themselves. But if someone's opinions are strongly enough held that they have spent years running a web site pushing one side of the issue, that's a good indicator that they probably can't set those feelings aside no matter how hard they try. If this is truly unprecedented, it says something unfortunate about the ethics of ArbCom, and may be a good indication of why its prestige among the Wikipedia community is at a nadir. *** Crotalus *** 15:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum on the RFAR pages

2) All parties are reminded that WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. apply on arbitration pages as much as (if not more than) on the rest of Wikipedia. Any user breaching any of these policies may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I wouldn't normally recommend this, but there are so many entrenched points of view and vested interests that this would be useful. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is necessary; I've seen some heated debate but no serious incivility so far. Perhaps I've overlooked something. *** Crotalus *** 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by John254

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are expected to understand and enforce the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators who engage in serious violations of this policy may be desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Don't we normally wait a reasonable length of time for Wikipedians to defend themselves first before proposing something this extreme? The case has been open less than 24 hours. Durova^Charge! 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Durova: on the contrary, it's useful to write proposals here based on the evidence presented so far, to inform parties to the case of what they have "to defend themselves" against -- of what principles might be applied, and what conclusions drawn, in the absence of any defense. John254 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For over a year I have spoken out against over-hasty conclusions at arbitration. When Wikipedians are informed of an arbitration case they are requested to allow one week for evidence presentation. Please keep an open mind. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the arbitrators will allow a minimum of one week before introducing any findings and remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision. Other editors, posting in this workshop, are under no such restriction. John254 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a friendly suggestion, your your own credibility could be more at issue than his with over-hasty proposals. Really, if there's nothing to be said for Cirt six days from now then the same proposals would carry greater weight. If there is more to be said for him, then you might regret such strong proposals. The definition of prejudice is to reach a conclusion before seeing enough evidence. Nothing personal: I said as much to Mackensen and TheBainer here. Earnestly, Durova^Charge! 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violations by OTRS members

2) WP:BLP violations by OTRS members are considered to be especially egregious misconduct, since many users will presume the correctness of WP:BLP actions by editors who display the OTRS userbox, even when no OTRS ticket number is cited in the edits. While the removal of OTRS membership is outside the remit of the Arbitration Committee, the Committee can revoke OTRS members' editing privileges to prevent them from exercising an air of OTRS authority on the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, since Cirt used a blog to make a highly controversial claim concerning a living person [1], then used tabloid-sourced gossip to support similarly controversial information [2], and, despite sometimes vociferous protestations to the contrary [3], did actually edit-war the tabloid-sourced gossip back into the article [4]. If the police are robbing your house, then who can you call? John254 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources can cause real harm to real people

3) Edits to a biography are visible immediately, and may, to the extent that they are poorly sourced and potentially false, cause harm to the subject of an article from the moment of their implementation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, using language shamelessly borrowed from an editor supporting Cirt [5]. Since articles aren't drafts, WP:BLP violations are no mere technical errors, but are rather serious freaking business. John254 02:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple mistakes vs. major disruption

4) The degree of impropriety ascribed to an incorrect or editorial administrative action is often directly proportional to the deliberation shown in performing it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. For instance, deleting the main page once without a summary would be considered a simple mistake, while the same deletion effectuated with the summary "removing unnecessary main page" might constitute grounds for emergency desysopping. If an administrator who deleted the main page on the asserted grounds of inutility continued to claim, during a request for arbitration, that his deletion appeared correct at the time, even if a consensus subsequently formed against it, we would have little confidence in his future administrative acts. It should be considered that Cirt's WP:BLP violations appeared to note the character of the material in question, that Cirt did not self-revert or apologize for the edits at the time, and that, even now, Cirt's own evidence does not appear to acknowledge that any controversial material concerning living persons should have been supported by reliable sources ab initio. John254 03:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Cirt

1) Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has added inadequately sourced controversial material concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles on several occasions, in egregious violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Fabricating_material_from_unreliable_source.28s.29, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Cirt_misrepresents_sources, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Cirt_uses_poor_sources. Particularly, see [6] and [7] in which Cirt uses a blog, and the tabloid magazine New Idea, respectively, to make controversial claims concerning living persons. One of the very sources that Cirt cites in his edit describes New Idea as one of "the celebrity gossip weeklies". Furthermore, Cirt used the tabloid magazine as a source [8] after the conclusion of an RFC as a result of which he conceded that a blog does not constitute a reliable source for the purpose of making controversial claims concerning a living person. John254 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As if that weren't bad enough, after a another editor removed Cirt's tabloid-sourced WP:BLP violation, Cirt restored it with a misleading edit summary (the reliable sources expressly described the matter as factually questionable tabloid-sourced gossip). Thus, the claims of editors defending Cirt to the effect that "Cirt didn't edit-war" [9] are blatantly false. John254 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt's prior accounts

2) Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was previously User:Smeelgova, an account which was renamed to User:Smee [10]. He was blocked seven times for edit warring largely related to new-age religious groups under both accounts, as chronicled in their block logs [11] [12]. At the time Cirt was granted adminship, he refused to disclose the identities of his prior accounts. Moreover, the deletion of the prior accounts' talk pages [13] [14] served to further conceal Cirt's misconduct at the time of his RFA, even from users who were aware of his prior identity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This fails to note that at Cirt's RFA his prior block history was fully disclosed, as were the serious harassment concerns that led to the username changes. I provided an offer to supply appropriate details to any editor in good standing who requested them, and referred editors who needed further substantiation to Jimbo Wales. The bureaucrats addressed the matter adequately at RFA closure (which was a solid 80% in support). Cirt received a solid 166 supports at RFA, making him the 19th most popular RFA candidate in site history (in terms of total supports). Durova^Charge! 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Cirt has revealed the previous accounts, these accounts' talk pages should be undeleted for transparency in these proceedings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Durova: the fact that Cirt's blocks for edit warring were largely related to articles concerning new-age religious groups similar to the Church of Scientology was not disclosed at his RFA, though it may have affected how his subsequent WP:BLP violations on articles related to the Church of Scientology were treated. John254 22:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt's treatment of our biographies of living persons policy

3) Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) continues to treat violations of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources as ordinary content disputes, not policy violations which administrators should remedy, prevent, and refrain from engaging in themselves, as described in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Cirt's own evidence, in which he states in relevant part that

historically I have started RFCs in order to resolve content disputes, such as here at David Miscavige, later closing the RFC against my own prior position here, deferring to community consensus on the issue as is appropriate after a content-RFC.

John254 01:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rootology

4) Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from Wikipedia from September 2006 until May 2008 due to severe personal attacks and other extensive disruption. During the course of this case, Rootology made ~~unreferenced allegations concerning another editor's religious affiliation and/or employer, in violation of WP:NPA and WP:LIBEL~~ personal attacks against another editor on the basis of the latter's alleged religious affiliation and/or employer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Jossi's connection with Prem Rawat is not in dispute, and mentioning it is not outing. It is, however, utterly irrelevant to this case.

(Needless to say, proposals of this type are not particularly helpful either.) Kirill ^(prof) 05:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per [15], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive68#Right_to_vanish.2C_vandals.2C_and_XP, Special:Undelete/User:Rootology, and [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. John254 05:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it a LIBEL or outing of anything, when Jossi openly discusses his affiliations with the Prem Rawat religious organization?

"As I have accepted a position in a related organization, I may reduce the level of my involvement in editing articles related to Prem Rawat and organizations that support his work."[21]

He openly acknowledges his engagement with and employment therein. Whats the outing, exactly? That page is linked right in public off his userspace. rootology (C)(T) 05:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide the link at the time you made the comment. In any case, your comments amount to an irrelevant personal attack, since the WP:BLP violations by Cirt at issue here didn't relate to Prem Rawat in any way. John254 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not edit this page again; but your bullying tactics are appalling and Wikipedia is the worse for your behavior. rootology (C)(T) 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kirill: I mentioned the Rawat association in relation this, and because of Jossi's mysterious appearance here, when he had no major involvement in the case, and only to attack Cirt, who he has long had bad blood for, as seen in Cirt's RFA. It was to me an extra level of unhelpful. rootology (C)(T) 05:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mysterious"? I agree! Just check my name as a party in this arbitration. (lol!) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that's quite irrelevant here. Assuming good faith doesn't suddenly become inapplicable merely because the page has "Requests for arbitration" in its title. Please tone down your comments; tangential accusations of people belonging to cults are unacceptable. Kirill ^(prof) 05:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will not post here again. I only ask that you act to curb these bullying tactics by some of the people on this page. rootology (C)(T) 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Cirt desysopped

1) Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely, and may not be restored except by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nah. Cirt does good work, as long as it unrelated to the subject of this arbitration or new religious movements, in which it seems he is incapable to restrain himself. Cirt does not seem to have abused the tools, so desysopping may be unwarranted. OTOH, banning from certain articles for a good period of time, will surely protect Cirt from eventually getting to the point in which he harms himself enough that desysopping may be an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - Sourcing issues that should have been taken to RS/N can still be taken to RS/N. Cirt has been a valuable contributor, and effective admin. Furthermore, he does not even use his admin tools in this area, so it is inapplicable. --GoodDamon 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material provides high sourcing requirements for controversial information concerning living persons, extraordinary remedies for the removal of the offending material, and severe administrative sanctions for editors who violate the provision. The breach of this particular clause of the biographies of living persons policy is a far more serious offense than ordinary "poor sourcing" unrelated to any particular living people. The importance of the biographies of living persons policy is such that we should not countenance administrators seriously and repeatedly violating it. Moreover, when Cirt's request for adminship was approved, he refused to disclose the identities of his prior accounts and requested the deletion of the accounts' talk pages [22] [23], thereby hiding the fact that his seven prior blocks for edit warring [24] [25] related to new-age religious groups similar to the Church of Scientology. John254 22:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first, I think Durova pretty much laid the Smee thing to rest. It's over, it's done with, it's got the Jimbo Wales stamp of approval. Secondly, I took a look at your diffs for proving BLP violation, and I'm afraid I don't see it. I'm not saying it's not there -- perhaps my eyes need to be checked -- but could you please spell out where the BLP violation is? --GoodDamon 23:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's adequately explained in my comment concerning the proposed finding of fact above. Do you contend that blogs and tabloid magazines are actually good reliable sources for making controversial claims concerning living people, or that Cirt was not fully informed of the problems with blogs before he resorted to a tabloid magazine for this purpose? John254 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Cirt did inadvertantly or mistakenly use weak sourcing, on a BLP, on what basis does that warrant desysopping someone in this extra-rigid manner? Are you honestly saying Cirt is on the level of, say, User:Archtransit? rootology (C)(T) 23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If evidence of Cirt's repeated WP:BLP violations had been available at his request for adminship, it almost certainly would not have passed: the evidence clearly establishes that the edits constituting the WP:BLP violations were deliberate, even if not intended as violations of the policy, and were not merely the product of a simple mistake such as an incorrect mouse-click. Cirt either introduced the offending material himself, without subsequently providing better sources, or restored it, noting its character in the edit summary. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the WP:BLP violations indicate that Cirt either does not understand, or is deliberately disregarding, our Biographies of living persons policy. Whichever may be the case, neither condition is acceptable for an administrator. John254 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it--you just crossed a line. You need to put up evidence of "Cirt's repeated WP:BLP violations". Two instances that are at best borderline and were after Cirt's successful, community-mandated RFA. Are you implying that Cirt had some historic history of BLP violations that predated his RFA? If not, your poisoning the well can be seen as a personal attack, or at the least disruptive of the RFAR process. rootology (C)(T) 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As described here, Cirt engaged in two WP:BLP violations, the second after being informed that his first violation was unacceptable, thus justifying the use of the phrase "Cirt's repeated WP:BLP violations". John254 00:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you engaging in such incredible and mean-spirited (even vicious) spin? You specifically wrote,

"If evidence of Cirt's repeated WP:BLP violations had been available at his request for adminship, it almost certainly would not have passed: the evidence clearly establishes that the edits constituting the WP:BLP violations were deliberate"

All of this was AFTER the community gave Cirt a successful RFA. Did Cirt do something to you on the User:John254 username, or another username, in the past, or do you have the luxury of a time machine? Because your arguments make no sense at all now. rootology (C)(T) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statement "If evidence of Cirt's repeated WP:BLP violations had been available at his request for adminship, it almost certainly would not have passed..." is hypothetical; obviously evidence of the WP:BLP violations wasn't available at Cirt's request for adminship because he hadn't engaged in the violations yet. Nonetheless, had he engaged in the violations prior to the request for adminship, and were the evidence thus available, the RFA (already controversial) likely would not have passed. John254 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission, your entire odd platform here comes down to hypotheticals then. An admin in good standing is accused of maybe inserting two BLP violations--possibly borderline ones at that--and then deferring to community wisdom on them. This admin didn't edit war, didn't act incivil, didn't even use admin tools within a hundred leagues of the Scientology articles--but you want to deadmin them extra firm so that only the Arbitration Committee can undo the deadminning, with the extra gravy of a 30-day siteban for one of our most prolific Featured Article writers, who also I believe has 1-2 Main Page appearances. Again, why? What on Earth did Cirt do to merit this over the top level of wrath? Its like having the police shoot someone twice because they may or may not have ran a red light. rootology (C)(T) 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is just plain mean and vindictive, and unsupported by any evidence of misuse of admin tools that warrant making someone an unperson administratively. rootology (C)(T) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. No substantial evidence has been presented that Cirt misused his administrative tools. Also, why the difference from the usual standard permitting either an appeal or an RFA to restore? Stifle (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt banned for 30 days

2) Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s editing privileges are revoked for a period of 30 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - This seems merely punitive, and I can't see the reasoning behind it. --GoodDamon 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After being blocked seven times [26] [27] for edit warring largely related to new age religious groups similar to the Church of Scientology, Cirt gained adminship while refusing to disclose the identities of his prior accounts, then proceed to engage in two successive and serious WP:BLP violations on articles related to the Church of Scientology as described above, while his administrative office avoided the imposition of sanctions, since administrators often presume propriety in the conduct of, and show considerable reluctance to block, other sysops. A 30 day ban may be necessary to demonstrate that this sort of disruption will not be tolerated. John254 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vindictive proposal unsupported by precedent or evidence. rootology (C)(T) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vexatious. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt admonished

3) Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished to edit in compliance with the biographies of living persons policy, and is warned that future violations may result in the revocation of his editing privileges for an extended period of time. John254 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly opposed - If Cirt is to be admonished for a few poor instances of sourcing, I can provide you literally hundreds of instances of pro-Scientology editors sourcing directly to Church-owned websites. I will change my vote here if this proposal is modified to reflect admonishment in proportion to the use of poor sourcing. --GoodDamon 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, so for the record, here is the applicable text from BLP, verbatim:

BLP

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biograpies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator.

Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

I see no evidence that Cirt edit-warred over anything, and even proceeded with RfCs in several cases. He may have chosen a few poor sources, but he did not violate this clause of WP:BLP. --GoodDamon 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one case, Cirt restored the offending material after another editor had removed it, while, in the other, he first introduced the offending material into the article. To editors who aren't wikilawyering, the instruction to

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

obviously forbids the introduction of the offending material to the article in the first place. Yet even for editors who insist upon wikilawyering the biographies of living persons policy, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources clearly and expressly proscribes the introduction of inadequately sourced information concerning living people into Wikipedia articles:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.^[1]

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

John254 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, no one is wikilawyering. BLP provides drastic measures as options in cases of edit-warring to insert violations. Cirt didn't edit-war. Cirt introduced material (or restored material deleted by another user), but went with consensus when it was against him. You are free to disagree with Cirt over whether a source is reliable or not -- heck, I certainly do -- but you are not free to impose restrictions on him when he didn't war over that source. Simple test: Did Cirt keep reinserting the material, or did he put in requests for comment, and abide by the results of those requests? If the former, then sure, ban him. But it wasn't the former, it was the latter. BLP does not say "Disagree with the quality of this user's proposed material? Ban him!" --GoodDamon 23:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than quoting BLP--Do no harm, see, anyone can do it--how about demonstrating specifically the ongoing serial nature of Cirt's wrongdoing that warrants a monthlong block and perma-deadminning that you're advocating? rootology (C)(T) 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admonished for what? Wheres the evidence of serially doing this? If one source is judged by the AC to be weak or dodgy, and wasn't warred over by Cirt, whats there to admonish? "Cirt didn't jump through real-time hoops in this specific instance and used a source that may or may not be great, so is admonished." ? rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources requires that all controversial information concerning living persons be attributed to reliable sources from the very moment it is introduced into Wikipedia articles. One can't simply add {{refimprove}} to the article and then come back to it later. As described above, Cirt has engaged in serious violations of the policy twice, once after being clearly informed of his prior violation. John254 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are vexatious and drama-super amplifying in their wording, and you're taking a pointless flamethrower to the fields here. Cirt actually initiated the RFC in the first instance, deferred to the community, and let it be. The sex & scientology topic after it was removed was never re-added after being discussed. The community decides what violates BLP, not John254; and Cirt simply deferred to the wisdom of his peers. Do you have any evidence of ongoing serial malfeasance by the guy? Please list it if you do, because two at best debatable edits based on the POV of the reviewer do not rise to the level of any ongoing "abuse" the warrants taking an admin in good standing out behind the shed for the Steward chopping block. rootology (C)(T) 23:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies of living persons policy is, in the most clear-cut cases, enforced administratively, as described in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. If we have, then, an administrator who must repeatedly "[defer] to the wisdom of his peers" even to recognize obvious WP:BLP violations, he should not hold the position. John254 00:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice is the new "repeatedly"? If admins are to summarily executed for "two" arguable errors, which are still completely up for debate as errors, are we going to lower the RFA threshold to say 25% support to replenish the loss of admins we're about to see? Also, aren't you the guy that keeps filing frivilous and drama-laden RFARs that don't involve you even though people keep telling you to stop? Does that mean you should be topic-banned from RFARs that don't name you as a party from before the filing? For example, this one? Geese=gander, etc. rootology (C)(T) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between two simple mistakes, and two actions which indicate that an administrator may not understand one of our basic policies. We depend on the judgment of the arbitrators to tell the difference. The fact that Cirt couldn't actually recognize his obviously inappropriate additions of controversial material concerning living people as errors until many other editors informed him of this fact is perhaps more important than the initial addition or restoration of the offending content. Now, if you're going to make an ad hominem argument against me such as "aren't you the guy that keeps filing frivilous and drama-laden RFARs that don't involve you" [28], I could refute your point either of two ways. I could note the percentage of cases that were actually accepted, and that the acceptance or denial of a request for arbitration is much less predictable than the operation of the plain language contained in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Alternatively, I could point out that you were, until recently, indefinitely banned for some pretty extensive disruption. WP:KETTLE, anyone? John254 01:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to call on my history, as I've never made any secret of it, but calling it "extensive" is a subjective thing to say, as it is if I say you've extensively disrupting RFAR as others have asked you about[29][30]. You're still here on RFAR pages, though, and appear to be a pretty good vandal fighter and stuck around despite having a lot of crap hurled at you, and I'm still here, despite having a lot of crap on and off-wiki hurled at me, and have even managed to start producing featured content myself. And "recently"? Seven months is recent?

My point is simple: we've never deadminned admins for two borderline mistakes, and it would be terribly irresponsible to deadmin a good-standing feature-writing admin who had 166 supports and passed with 79% even after their history of being harassed off-wiki was outed. The fact that Cirt is willing to stick around after taking so much crap and abuse (like you and I!), and has never once been challenged for using any admin tools in an area he's so involved with--Scientology--says reams. You're basically advocating that we discard one of our top featured content writers and admins over utterly borderline issues, that were self-corrected and acknowledged by Cirt himself. There's simply no ground, merit, standing, precedent, or reason to sanction Cirt with your proposals of de-adminning and sitebanning for a month. At all.

Cirt in general should be commended for his restraint and for helping to defend Wikipedia against abusive sockpuppetry and ROLE accounts which are a danger to this website through coordinated attacks against our neutrality. rootology (C)(T) 01:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is hardly "two borderline mistakes" -- it's one of an administrator who not only violated Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources twice, but insisted, and, as described above, continues to insist in his own evidence submitted to this very proceeding, that violations of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources are like ordinary content disputes, that we can just discuss the issue on the talk page and everything will be okay. In fact, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material clearly states that the sourcing requirements are administratively enforceable, and rather strongly implies that the offending content should never appear in the article at all, something an administrator should certainly be expected to understand. John254 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:GoodDamon

Proposed principles

WP:SOCK and WP:ROLE are not optional

1) If claims of mitigating circumstances such as shared proxies are not backed by evidence thereof, a checkuser-determination of sockpuppetry stands. When the sockpuppets in question edit solely on behalf of the organization their IP addresses are traced to, they may be presumed to be WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. If editors are using an organization's IPs, and are editing to promote an organization's POV, then they should be regarded as role accounts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unsupported conclusions. Editors editing from an identifiable organizational IP are neither ROLE accounts, sockpuppets, or even meatpuppets simply by virtue of editing from an identifiable organizational IP, especially if that IP is for an international organization. Whether they have a presumed COI is another issue but this statement is unsupported by logic. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justallofthem, they're not "editing from an identifiable organizational IP," they're editing from an identifiable Church of Scientology-owned IP. It's not just some random organization. And the thing is, you know that. I can't believe you would simply overlook the importance of that. You're being deliberately obfuscatory on this, and I can't figure out why. This isn't an instance of a bunch of people from an organization editing in unrelated articles. If employees of Ford Motor Company were editing in the Dusky-Footed Woodrat article, I don't think anyone would even take note. --GoodDamon 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I would think that you are "deliberately" misunderstanding me except I do not think you would. You started by generalizing this point you bring up, I just continued that theme. Of course, in this case, the "identifiable organizational IP" is the Church. I say, and have always said, that there may be a COI issue. I reject your claim that ROLE, SOCK, and MEAT apply a priori. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I want to know why you reject them. Were we discussing any other topic, from politics to fruitcakes, checkuser-verified socks -> belonging to an organization devoted to the topic -> that edit solely in that topic -> that edit solely from a promotional POV -> would be banned almost immediately, with your full support. And I'm not even asking for banning, I'm just asking for topic-banning. --GoodDamon 21:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a Microsoft employee editing the Vista article provided that they declare their COI and otherwise follow the rules here. That is all that WP:COI requires. There is a difference between a PR flack editing here and some random employee. COI is not black and white but in no case is the editor outright topic-banned unless they do something to deserve that. You really need to understand what ROLE, SOCK, and MEAT are because you are not, my friend, using them correctly in this context. No-one ever claimed that Shutterbug was a ROLE account. No-one ever seriously claimed that Shutterbug and Misou were socks. There was serious discussion as to whether they might co-ordinate their edits, i.e. act as meatpuppets, and there was a resolution put in place to address that. But I wish that you would stop with the ROLE and SOCK claims as regards Shutterbug and Misou. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons:

A WP:SOCK is "an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." This assumes the account is used at the same time as the other "alternative account". No evidence has been brought forth that accounts editing from the same IP have been used concurrently. Further no evidence has been brought forth that accounts sharing the same IP[31] have used their account "for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies". I am not saying that such evidence does not exist. It was not presented however and I could not find any.

"No evidence that accounts editing from the same IP have been used concurrently"? Have you looked at checkuser results? There are multiple accounts verified to have edited from individual, church-owned IP addresses. That isn't even in dispute. --GoodDamon 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look at the checkuser results. Actually several checkusers have been done in the past 2 years and all results from all times have been slapped together in one grid (by Cirt). No evidence of concurrent editing has been shown and the grid shows clearly that several ISPs have been used by several people. But this is not my issue. WP:SHARE already says that "Checkusers cannot look through the wire to see who uses the computer at the other end." I just cannot find that those accounts were "used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies" or evidence that the accounts are operated by the same person (only that would make them sock puppets). I am trying to point out the logical fallacies of your proposition but you do not seem interested. Shrampes (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDamons proposal asks the editors in question to waive their privacy rights and present personal data to defend themselves. I don't think that is common praxis on Wikipedia. Lastly, there has been no evidence for WP:ROLE accounts (multiple editors using the same identity).

No, it asks the editors in question not to edit in Scientology-related articles because they have a built-in, insurmountable conflict of interest. And as for evidence concerning WP:ROLE, there's never any way to prove it beyond actually filming two people logging in with the same account. You might as well not have a policy on role accounts if you can't take the circumstantial evidence of multiple accounts sharing the same IP addresses owned by the organization the article is about, and editing from the organization's POV, and use that to add 2 and 2. --GoodDamon 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You leave me baffled. Honestly, are you trolling? I know employees that do not talk nicely about their company most of the time. What is wrong with their "built-in, insurmountable conflict of interest"? What you are saying does not make sense. Sorry, but their visible behavior counts, not what you figure they think. Shrampes (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal tries to change the definition of WP:ROLE accounts to say that users with a shared IP must be banned. WP:ROLE currently means "A role account is an account that is not associated with a particular person, but with an office, position, or task." and not "multiple users with a shared IP". Such policy changes require broad consensus.

I have no way of knowing if one or many people are behind any of the accounts in question. Again, you're arguing against the very existence of the WP:ROLE policy at this point. --GoodDamon 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted earlier what a WP:ROLE account is. Please show me where the "WP:ROLE policy" is. My Wikipedia does not have one. Shrampes (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal tries to circumvent quality control of editor contributions and potentially inflates the number of harassing checkuser requests. I am certain that there are many Microsoft employees in Wikipedia editing Macintosh or Vista articles. The professional background of the editor will go unnoticed in 100% of all cases, but his edits are open to scrutiny by the community. This is how it should be. If any of his background would be known any edits could be dismissed simply by pointing to the editor (and not the edit), saying "the edit must be bad because he works for Microsoft" . Shrampes (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument against WP:ROLE itself. And your analogy is fallacious, because such an editor would get noticed -- and probably banned -- if they edited only in the Vista article, and only to promote it. That is called a single-purpose account, and as long as such accounts edit neutrally, they're fine. But when they edit from a promotional POV, and work for the organization they're promoting, that attracts attention. --GoodDamon 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would a ROLE account editor be noticed other than by declaring his WP:COI? Shrampes (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Shutterbug, Misou, and all associated accounts editing from Church IP addresses

1) User:Shutterbug, User:Misou, and any account that has edited from or currently edits from IP addresses owned by the Church of Scientology are not exempt from WP:SOCK or WP:ROLE. They are established as single-purpose sock or meatpuppet accounts editing on behalf of the Church of Scientology. Editors in good standing who do not edit on behalf of any organization cannot be expected to edit productively in an atmosphere dominated by the organization most responsible for promotion of the article's topic, and should not be expected to tolerate it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are we saying that any edit on any topic related to Scientology is an edit "on behalf of the Church of Scientology"? To give an analogy, would we view every edit made from a Vatican IP, to any article related to Christianity, as an edit made "on behalf of the Vatican"? I think we are in danger of forgetting that we are dealing with real, flesh-and-blood people here, who see a mass of sometimes badly sourced articles in Wikipedia that treat their religion much as Islam is treated by sites like http://www.prophetofdoom.net. I would be more sympathetic to your line of reasoning if Wikipedia were swamped with articles extremely flattering to the Church, but that is not the case. Instead, there is a long history of edit-wars over the inclusion of material sourced to self-published anti-Scientology sites, in breach of content policies and guidelines, and it is the Scientology opponents who have historically been in the majority and won these edit wars. Jayen466 15:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument, much like Shutterbug's own, is essentially an argument against the WP:SOCK policy and the WP:ROLE policy. If an IP address tracing back to the Vatican consistently only edits in articles about Catholicism, and only ever adds material in favor Catholicism or removes material disparaging to Catholicism, and there are multiple accounts associated with that IP address that all behave in the same way... Then yes, we would view those edits as "on behalf of the Vatican." That theoretical editor has a built-in conflict of interest at bare minimum. As for bad sources in Wikipedia, I agree with you completely... and that has absolutely no bearing on this. Bad sources for content and role accounts are two entirely separate issues, and frankly I think this is the wrong forum for content issues. If you regard a source as bad, you RfC it, or you take it to RS/N. With BLPs, you take the source out of the article immediately (and if you're the one who added it in the first place, you accept that removal instead of edit-warring over it)... and then you RfC it, or you take it to RS/N. It's not a complicated process, but it's a process that never happened with the sources you've been talking about. Don't get me wrong, the majority of them should be purged... I think we absolutely have consensus on that. But what that has to do with this arbitration, I just can't figure out. --GoodDamon 16:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Again, illogical. No editor here is exempt from ROLE or SOCK. That is a meaningless statement. Followed by the unsupported claim that these are "established", presumably by the organization, and that they are SOCK and MEAT. Next, the idea that Shutterbug or any other of the subject editors "dominates" in the Scientology series is just ludicrous. The series is "dominated" by Cirt, an anti-NRM POV-warrior. Scientology articles have always been "dominated" by critics which is why they read as they do; lots of understanding of criticism, little understanding of Scientology. If Scientologists are expected to edit alongside confirmed anti-Scientologists, some of whom stand outside Churches wearing masks and being rowdy and some of whom maintain personal sites devoted to criticism of Scientology then critics and others can show a little hospitality to Scientologists.

Comment by others:

Per the original arbitration, which established both the puppetry and likely WP:ROLE status of the accounts, and the ownership of the IP addresses from which the accounts were/are editing, in a checkuser. --GoodDamon 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Multiple single purpose accounts place other editors at a disadvantage and inevitably skew articles towards the organization's POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Again, the quality of contribution counts and not "religion, philosophy, race, nationality" or anything else like that. No evidence has been brought forth that edits of these editors have harmed Wikipedia. All I could find is that they are WP:SPAs. Shrampes (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Shutterbug, Misou, and other accounts found to edit from Church of Scientology addresses topic-banned

1) All accounts found to edit on behalf of the Church of Scientology are topic-banned indefinitely. They are not banned from Wikipedia, and are invited to edit productively in other areas of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: Misou's IP usage was found to be unrelated to that of the others in the CU. On what basis is he included here? Jayen466 14:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my comment above, timed 15:24, 12 December 2008. Jayen466 15:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read further down in the same checkuser you link. He/she was later confirmed. --GoodDamon 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is "Unrelated Misou's IP usage is unrelated to the others." What are you referring to? I also wonder if the use of http://your-freedom.net by Scientologists could possibly be related to the fact that computers in Scientology buildings are said to have a filtering software installed that blocks access to many critical sites, including, possibly, Scientology articles on Wikipedia. Because getting round such filters is what your-freedom.net is mainly designed for. Jayen466 16:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misou and an account called User:Grrrilla were confirmed further down. Seriously, just keep scrolling. It's right there. --GoodDamon 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was in May 2007. The remedies currently in place were formulated several months after that. They did not specify that Misou was forbidden to edit Scientology-related articles. Hence I see no valid reason for editors to object to Misou editing the articles, absent any specific problems with his editing. Jayen466 20:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These things are big and rather confusing, so I thought I should point these results to you as well. Misou is actually one of the accounts that has used a lot of Church-associated IP addresses and open proxies. --GoodDamon 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[32] Jayen466 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Alrighty, then. [33]. --GoodDamon 23:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and uhh, actually, if they're using proxies to get around filters in Scientology buildings, isn't that kind of indicative of the problem? --GoodDamon 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

An assumption of innocence based on unprovable and unlikely claims of a shared proxy cannot and should not be used to sidestep WP:SOCK. --GoodDamon 23:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Based on years of history, it can no longer be assumed that these editors can follow NPOV on the topic of Scientology. There is no reason to believe that they would be biased on unrelated topics. ("Unrelated" defined broadly.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having interacted directly with some of these users and extensively reviewing their history, it is clear to me that they have a very strong POV which can get in the way of constructive editing. Although this in itself is not necessarily grounds to ban, due to the repeated history of using open proxies and official Church of Scientology-owned IPs (sorry, ns1.scientology.org is NOT a kiosk proxy), I believe that a topic ban (not global) is well in order. ←Spidern→ 03:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having looked at some edit histories and interactions, it is clear to me that most of the other editors contributing to these articles have very strong anti-Scientology POVs that get in the way of constructive editing. Eschewing the entire body of published scholarly literature (except Stephen A. Kent, of course) in favour of whyaretheydead.net and Operation Clambake is ample evidence of that. How would you like to address that problem? Or do you think the articles will get better if we just leave the field to the anti-Scientology crowd? I would suggest both sides have to learn to work together, using proper sources. As Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs) pointed out, there is published analysis and criticism of Scientology as well, it's just a bit more responsible and intelligent than what you find on the net. I am sure we can get Scientologists to see that criticism published in bona fide, reliable sources must have its place in these articles. But that is a whole lot different from the sort of polemics and ridicule passed off as NPOV editing by some editors in the past. Jayen466 17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask what that has to do with sockpuppetry and role accounts? You seem to be saying, "Some editors have use bad sources. Therefore, we should ignore role accounts and the policy they violate." Seriously, what are you trying to say? You have well established that there are sourcing issues. No one contests that. But it has nothing to do with this issue. --GoodDamon 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROLE states: "A role account is an account that is not associated with a particular person, but with an office, position, or task. Those doing the task use the account only to do the task. They have other accounts for other work." I do not think that Shutterbug (talk · contribs) is such an account. I believe the account is associated with a particular person, who has edited Wikipedia from various locations, including buildings owned by the Church of Scientology. Jayen466 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one of the things checkuser is for. At this point, it boils down to how believable the proxy argument is. The arbiters aren't idiots, and will be able to judge that for themselves. --GoodDamon 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jayen466 See prior evidence provided by jpgordon (talk · contribs). ←Spidern→ 15:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of last year's Checkuser result, and of the remedies that resulted from them. They did not prohibit Misou from editing. What has changed to make these remedies inappropriate now? Jayen466 15:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those remedies were in part predicated on the notion that the proxy argument held water. As you are aware, there are several editors who feel that recent discussions on the matter have rendered those arguments highly unlikely. --GoodDamon 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced. The whole idea that this is some kind of official drive by the CofS is ludicrous. Jayen466 23:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will remain unconvinced. I doubt there's very much I could say to change your mind, so this is another issue we'll need to leave up to the arbitrators to decide. But if you're interested, you might read up on the history between Scientology and the Internet (before wikilinking this one, I made sure most of the cites were good ones). --GoodDamon 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Jossi

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view and sourcing

1) Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must portray all significant points of view in a fairly and accurately manner, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesized merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Jayen466 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Shrampes (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reliance on secondary sources

2) Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary sources can be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strongly support. This has been a serious, ongoing problem with Scientology-related articles. We make far too extensive use of primary sources, and often in a manner which amounts to original research by synthesis. *** Crotalus *** 15:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support I have been attempting to improve the quality of Scientology-related articles by removing ~~secondary~~(typo) primary sources and participating in dialogue to find objective alternative secondary sources. ←Spidern→ 16:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support - and I think Spidern above meant "removing primary sources" in favor of the more reliable secondary ones. :) --GoodDamon 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Convenience links to primary sources should only be given where secondary sources specifically mention these primary sources. Quotes from or content summaries of the primary sources should be limited to the extent to which these have been quoted or summarised in secondary literature published by reputable publishing houses. Jayen466 17:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Shrampes (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content policies

"Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" are the three core content policies of Wikipedia. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and thus they should not be interpreted or applied in isolation from one another, or one at the expense of another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Shrampes (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Cirt banned for 12 months from editing Scientology and related articles

1) User:Cirt banned for 12 months from editing Scientology and related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. No evidence of value to support this. Cirt should be commended for his actions in general. User:Jossi was furious over Cirt's RFA, was extremely disruptive and disgruntled there by posting repeatedly, and has now arrived here for political reasons unrelated to the Scientology issues. As a noted POV pusher and advocate for a cult organization, Jossi's suggestions here should be taken with a grain of salt given that Cirt has worked to enforce strict COI policies and controls over neutrality abuse the Church of Scientology, which would run counter to Jossi's own goals of advocacy for his own religious sect. rootology (C)(T) 04:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is not a !vote, secondly, this arbitration is not about me, thirdly I don't belong to a religious sect, I am a practicing Jew, and finally, you may consider avoiding poisoning the well and repeating your comments and make constructive proposals and/or arguments instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is not for revenge. Sorry. rootology (C)(T) 04:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is arbitration a forum for unbridled off-the-wall personal attacks against other editors without so much as a shred of supporting evidence. Please see my proposed finding of fact concerning your comments here. John254 05:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daft. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although BLP violations are not to be taken lightly, Cirt (talk · contribs) has acknowledged his fault and has not been shown to be in violation of any other policies. ←Spidern→ 16:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - The worst that can be said for the two edits under the microscope here is that they were borderline edits that Cirt didn't war over, and appropriately followed up on by going through the RfC process... something I heartily wish more editors would do instead of warring. --GoodDamon 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt banned for 6 months from editing articles related to New religious movements

2) User:Cirt banned for 6 months from editing articles related to New religious movements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No evidence presented supports this. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on general principle. Ban a major FA contributor from the area of his most common FAs? Ridiculous. --GoodDamon 17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt banned for 6 months from editing BLPs

2) User:Cirt banned for 6 months from editing BLPs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support per my proposed findings of fact -- however, if we're going to permit Cirt to retain the sysop bit, the WP:BLP ban should be extended to prohibit him from taking any administrative action on, or with respect to edits concerning, content related to any living person. We can hardly allow Cirt to block users for "edit warring" when they have been removing inadequately referenced controversial information concerning living people in conformity to the exception to the 3RR articulated in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. It's also worthwhile to note that Cirt currently holds OTRS privileges, which is sad, though the problem appears to be outside of the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction. John254 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence presented supports this. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - Again, bad sources are what WP:RS/N is for. If Cirt had warred instead of immediately seeking outside comment on his edits, there might, barely, be a threadbare thin argument here. --GoodDamon 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt prohibited for 12 months from exercising administrative rights in related articles

3) User:Cirt prohibited for 12 months from exercising any administrative rights in regard of articles related to BLPs and new religious movements, including, but not limited to closing of AfDs, issuing blocks to editors involved in editing these articles, or acting in any related arbitration enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose as a moot point. Cirt has been scrupulous about avoiding using admin tools in this area, from what I understand. --GoodDamon 17:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt admonished

4) Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for his conduct in this matter and is instructed to refrain from any further incidents of edit warring, biased editing, misrepresentation of sources, or taking taking administrator actions with respect to disputes in articles related to this arbitration case. Cirt is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the banning from editing such articles, or other corrective measures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Because the evidence indicates that Cirt did the opposite of edit warring. The most I could see here is a reminder to Cirt to use better sources. And no one has shown any evidence whatsoever of Cirt abusing admin tools. --GoodDamon 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, make a proposal rather than shooting down all other proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Response to GoodDamon edits such as this [34] [35] clearly constitute anything but "did the opposite of edit warring". Why are you misrepresenting the facts of this case? John254 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am officially asking the arbitrators to take a look at precisely those diffs, because you are misrepresenting them and I'm beginning to think you have a vendetta here. The first edit was not edit warring. It was a single revert of a bad deletion that took out a large swath of well-sourced material. Every cite in that block of text was good, and its removal as "off-topic" in the first place was highly inappropriate. The same user removed the block again, with the frankly insulting edit summary of "shameful editing - moving to talk". Moving to talk? Good. Deletion of large chunks of appropriate and on-topic material with an insulting edit summary? Bad. Cirt reached 2RR (not 3RR) on that, as did the frankly vexatious editor doing the deletions, but it did go to talk. And you didn't include this context at all. Not all reverts are edit warring, and you are consistently attempting to portray Cirt's edits in ways that don't add up once you look at the context. And you accuse me of misrepresenting anything? The next time you provide some evidence, I strongly suggest you look at the diffs immediately before and immediately after, then look at the talk page. The arbitrators will look at context, so you should too. --GoodDamon 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cool off a bit? These pages are to explore the subject and make proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that after Cirt used tabloid-sourced gossip to support controversial information concerning a living person [36], he did actually edit-war the tabloid-sourced gossip back into the article [37]. Now, that might not constitute very much edit warring -- even if considered in conjunction with the other, apparently non-WP:BLP violating reversion [38]-- if there weren't a serious WP:BLP violation involved, but, as even editors supporting Cirt concede,

edits to a biography are visible immediately, and may, to the extent that they are poorly sourced and potentially false, cause harm to the subject of an article from the moment of their implementation[39]

Since articles aren't non-viewable drafts, WP:BLP violations are serious freaking business. Especially considered in conjunction with Cirt's prior use of a blog as a source for highly controversial allegations against David Miscavige [40], that adds up to at least three serious WP:BLP violations, which just might be considered actionable misconduct, unless, of course, editors are permitted to repeatedly "cause harm to the subject of an article" with impunity. John254 02:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Rootology

Proposed principles

Use of Arbitration for revenge

1) The Arbitration process is not to be used for revenge, payback, or similar political purposes. Such use is considered disruptive, unhelpful, and sanctionable by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggested. Use of this last-ditch process to get "back" at "opponents" in cases you have nothing to do with is both appalling and shameful, and I call on the Committee to smash this process once and for all--kill the drama once and for all and kill it hard. rootology (C)(T) 04:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. The Arbitration process exists to deal with the most complex cases of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, and should not be subverted for wikilawyering or defamation of an otherwise valuable editor. ←Spidern→ 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Recommending severe sanctions unsupported by evidence is a form of gaming the system that should be discouraged. Some entries in this workshop appear to be motivated more by revenge or animus than by legitimate dispute resolution or policy enforcement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've seen absolutely nothing from Cirt meriting the vehemence of the reactions I've seen here. --GoodDamon 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But this protection must be good for all, not only the anti-scientology POV reps. Cirt is an issue here and I think GoodDamon needs a check too. But this can be done in civility and by really neutral people. Misou (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Protection of the Arbitration process

1) Arbiters, or Arb Clerks at the direction of Arbiters, will remove unhelpful, disruptive, drama-mongering, or clearly political Workshop sections and proposals a) brought by people uninvolved in the existing case; b)( that serve no purpose but as payback; c) as decided by them, with such rationales being public either by posting an explanation on the Workshop talk page, or in an edit summary upon it's removal. If users repeatedly disrupt the Arbitration process, the Clerks or Arbitration Committee members may sanction the involved users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good idea, and the clerk can get started with some of your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, the Clerk won't do anything at this point in time. I suggest that all of you calm down, take a breath and pause before clicking submit; unlike some other venues on Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee is sufficiently intelligent to wade through hyperbole and revenge-proposals (should they occur/have occured) and, potentially, use it against the person making such remarks. Daniel (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jayen466

Proposed principles

BLPs to be based on coverage in most reliable sources

1) Biographies of living persons should accurately reflect coverage in the most reliable published sources. Private third-party websites that host otherwise unpublished writing or copies of primary sources (such as court documents, affidavits etc.) are not reliable sources for BLP purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jayen466 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - BLP itself is worded in a way that requires good reliable sources. --GoodDamon 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

BLPs not to be primarily designed to disparage, embarrass or ridicule

2) Biographies of living persons should be written from a position of fundamental respect towards the individual. No biography of a living person should ever give the impression of having been written primarily to disparage, embarrass or ridicule its subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jayen466 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Support - BLPs should be written neutrally, and avoid anything that could be construed as libel. The second sentence I'm fine with, of course. Having spent quite a lot of time editing Barack Obama's BLP, I can tell you neutrality in BLPs is hard; half the people coming in want to proclaim him the messiah, the other half want to call him a foreign-born terrorist. --GoodDamon 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Scientology articles have used poor sourcing

1) A number of Scientology-related articles have used poor sourcing – relying on

various types of primary sources (publications by Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, court documents, affidavits, etc.),
the private websites of ex-Scientologists and other Scientology opponents,
press publications that have a below-average reputation for fact-checking and objective reporting.

Scholarly publications, the most reliable type of sources, have been underrepresented, despite a wealth of material being available.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jayen466 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious conclusion from the evidence presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Kristen Eriksen

Proposed principles

Proportionality

1) Remedies imposed by the arbitration committee are intended to be commensurate with the culpability of the editors against whom they are imposed. Disproportionately harsh or severe remedies are not implemented against editors for punitive purposes or to "make an example out of them", as such action is demoralizing to a volunteer project. A few isolated instances of policy violations will not ordinarily result in any remedies against an editor at all. This principle is especially relevant to the enforcement of essential policies such as WP:BLP: though edits to a biography are visible immediately, and may, to the extent that they are poorly sourced and potentially false, cause harm to the subject of an article from the moment of their implementation, these facts do not imply that we should rush to block/ban an editor or desysop an administrator the moment they violate the policy even once or twice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A few isolated incidents is one thing; and a pattern of behavior is another. Check the evidence page, and the involved editor's block history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - And might I suggest jossi apply the above sentence's logic to the accounts editing from Church of Scientology IP addresses? --GoodDamon 01:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, in response to certain almost bizarrely harsh remedies proposed by John254 and Jossi. I appreciate the frustration of trying to enforce WP:BLP when it seems that even admins and OTRS members are violating it, and the temptation that a respected editor like John254 and a respected admin like Jossi might feel to come here bearing torches and pitchforks. But it's also important to remember that not everyone is familiar with every detail of WP:BLP, and even those who are may find the policy complex and difficult to apply correctly in every single case they encounter during the course of an extensive history of contributions. The appropriate response to seeing evidence that a respected admin and OTRS member like Cirt made two edits that may not have been completely kosher is to write a polite note on his talk page concerning the WP:BLP issues. Desysoppings and bans are a last resort, but some editors seem to be using them as the first items on the menu. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you'll have to forgive Kristen here. She might have actually believed the factually incorrect statements made by the editors supporting Cirt, such as this gem:

BLP provides drastic measures as options in cases of edit-warring to insert violations. Cirt didn't edit-war. Cirt introduced material (or restored material deleted by another user), but went with consensus when it was against him. You are free to disagree with Cirt over whether a source is reliable or not -- heck, I certainly do -- but you are not free to impose restrictions on him when he didn't war over that source. Simple test: Did Cirt keep reinserting the material, or did he put in requests for comment, and abide by the results of those requests? If the former, then sure, ban him. But it wasn't the former, it was the latter...[41]

In fact, after Cirt used tabloid-sourced gossip to support controversial information concerning a living person [42], he did actually edit-war the tabloid-sourced gossip back into the article [43]. When we also consider Cirt's use of a blog as a source for highly controversial allegations against David Miscavige [44], that adds up to at least three serious WP:BLP violations, plus any others described on the evidence page, not to mention the other non-BLP sourcing problems and edit warring described there. Also, as Jossi points out, Cirt was actually blocked seven times for disrupting articles largely related to new-age religions under his prior account. John254 01:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest, presumptions

2) Users who edit from the IP addresses of a given organization are irrebuttably presumed to have a conflict of interest with respect to the editing of articles concerning or reasonably related to said organization. While editors under such a presumption are free to perform uncontroversial edits such as the reversion of obvious vandalism, libel, or WP:BLP violations, making controversial content edits may be improper, or at the very least give rise to the appearance of impropriety. For this reason, should users editing from a given organization make considerable controversial edits reasonably related to it, they may be prophylacticly banned from content concerning it without any specific findings of wrongdoing. Should a regular pattern of controversial presumptively conflict-of-interest editing emerge, all editors from relevant organization may be topic banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - That's one of the reasons WP:COI exists. --GoodDamon 01:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Editing from the Church of Scientology

1) Many users editing from the Church of Scientology have made considerable controversial edits reasonably related to it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Church of Scientology topic-banned

1) The Church of Scientology, and all users editing from it, are indefinitely banned from any subject matter directly related to Scientology.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - I would not support this harsh wording if the accounts in question showed any sign of any interest in Wikipedia aside from using it as a promotional vehicle and removing negative material, but enough's enough. And I'm afraid I just don't believe that future editors working from Church-owned IP addresses would behave differently. --GoodDamon 01:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Durova

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) An old custom used to avoid discussing religion and politics because the conversation is apt to end in a quarrel, yet Wikipedia covers these subjects. In the spirit of WP:NOT#Not a battleground, the site asks editors of differing personal beliefs to collaborate toward the shared goal of building an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but can be better written. "old custom" and "apt to end in a quarrel" is too colloquial ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support, to the extent not inconsistent with WP:COI :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

@@ Line 535: / Line 535: @@
 :'''Comment by others:'''
 ::
+:: '''Support'''. [[User:Shrampes|Shrampes]] ([[User talk:Shrampes|talk]]) 04:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 === Proposed findings of fact ===

Revision as of 04:02, 14 December 2008

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to openly discuss Cirt's past identity

Motion to undelete Cirt's past accounts' talk pages

ns1.Scientology.org confirmed socks are banned

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

User:David Gerard suspended from ArbCom mailing list for duration of case

Decorum on the RFAR pages

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by John254

Proposed principles

Administrators

WP:BLP violations by OTRS members

Violations of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources can cause real harm to real people

Simple mistakes vs. major disruption

Proposed findings of fact

Cirt

Cirt's prior accounts

Cirt's treatment of our biographies of living persons policy

Rootology

Proposed remedies

Cirt desysopped

Cirt banned for 30 days

Cirt admonished

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:GoodDamon

Proposed principles

WP:SOCK and WP:ROLE are not optional

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Shutterbug, Misou, and all associated accounts editing from Church IP addresses

Template

Proposed remedies

Shutterbug, Misou, and other accounts found to edit from Church of Scientology addresses topic-banned

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by Jossi

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view and sourcing

Reliance on secondary sources

Wikipedia content policies

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Cirt banned for 12 months from editing Scientology and related articles

Cirt banned for 6 months from editing articles related to New religious movements

Cirt banned for 6 months from editing BLPs

Cirt prohibited for 12 months from exercising administrative rights in related articles

Cirt admonished

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:Rootology

Proposed principles

Use of Arbitration for revenge

Proposed enforcement

Protection of the Arbitration process

Proposals by User:Jayen466

Proposed principles

BLPs to be based on coverage in most reliable sources

BLPs not to be primarily designed to disparage, embarrass or ridicule

Proposed findings of fact

Scientology articles have used poor sourcing

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by Kristen Eriksen