Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 9 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused and 6 who are inactive), so 5 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute is focused on Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and approximately 430 related articles, mostly within the Scientology portal, and has spilled over into various associated article-related processes (for example: WP:BLP/N; WP:RS/N; WP:AfD etc).

Support:

1. — Roger Davies ^talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Background

2) The dispute is longstanding: this is the fourth Scientology-related arbitration case in four years. Prior cases are: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (2005), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo (2006) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS (2007). More recently, the dispute become low-key but corrosive involving persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources. The corrosive atmosphere has resulted in normally neutral editors adopting polarized positions in countless minor sub-feuds (cf. Evidence presented by Durova). The topic has become a magnet for single purpose accounts; sockpuppetry is rife.

Support:

1. — Roger Davies ^talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Cirt

4) From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not appear to have engaged in violations of policy on biographies of living people nor in other serious problematic editing.

Support:

1. — Roger Davies ^talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

GoodDamon

5) After careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee finds that GoodDamon (talk · contribs) does not appear to have engaged in serious problematic editing.

Support:

1. — Roger Davies ^talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.