Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Statement by {Non-party}: not again - statement by Robert McClenon
Line 6: Line 6:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}

== Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ==
'''Initiated by ''' Sfarney

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Sfarney}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|The Wordsmith}}
*{{userlinks|Prioryman}}
*{{userlinks|Feoffer}}
*{{userlinks|Damotclese}}
*{{userlinks|Slashme}}
*{{userlinks|Thimbleweed}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&diff=prev&oldid=728243816 The Wordsmith]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prioryman&diff=prev&oldid=728243726 Prioryman]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Feoffer&diff=prev&oldid=728243678 Feoffer]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damotclese&diff=prev&oldid=728243629 Damotclese]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slashme&diff=prev&oldid=728243359 Slashme]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thimbleweed&diff=prev&oldid=728243471 Thimbleweed]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BiologistBabe&diff=728315820&oldid=728095437 BiologistBabe]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
*[[WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_206#Tonyortega.org|8 April 2016 - Query to RSN]] on whether the [http://tonyortega.org Tony Ortega blog] is a [[WP:RS]] to support extraordinary criminal allegations.
*[[WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#R2-45_copyright_policy_violations|15 April 2016 - Query to ANI]] on copyright violations of (1) an image used in the article and (2) a link to a page hosting an unlicensed copyright recording.
*[[WP:Files_for_discussion/2016_April_15#File:L_Ron_Hubbard_R2-45_Racket_Exposed_ads.png|21 April 2016 - FFD decision]]. Admin decided image is in violation and deleted it. The file had been uploaded and linked by Feoffer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R2-45&diff=715369574&oldid=715195904 on 15 April 2016].
*[[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#R2-45_.28continued.29|30 April 2016 - Query to ANI]]. I reopened to get definitive answer on [[WP:ELNEVER]]. Instead of an answer on copyright, I was threatened with being blocked.
*[[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Violation_of_WP:ELNEVER| 5 May 2016 - Query to ANI]]. I reopened a second time to get definitive answer on WP:ELNEVER. It was answered and I closed the question.
*[[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Prioryman|26 may 2016 - AE closure]]. I asked for enforcement of the Scientology 2009 provisions on Prioryman.
*[[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney|30 May 2016 - AE closure]]. A week later, Prioryman retaliated with a counter-request for sanctions against me.
*[[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_sfarney |6 June 2016 - AE appeal closure]]. I appealed the 12-month topic ban sanction.

=== Statement by Sfarney ===
({{user|BiologistBabe}} was a minor [[WP:TEAM]] member.)

A TEAM of editors/administrator is working against [[WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology|Scientology arbitration of 2009]] to advocate against Scientology. The editors of [[R2-45]] use/d [[WP:cherrypick]]ed quotes, blog speculations, an image in violation of [[WP:COPYVIO]], a single book mention from 50 years ago (no other critical books mention the subject), and [[WP:FRINGE]] theory from a non-expert to accuse Scientology of
#publishing lists of people to be killed,
#death threats to intimidate enemies,
#ordering people to commit suicide,
#advising believers to commit suicide, and
#being founded by a "[[malignant narcissist]]". [[R2-45]] cites a diagnosis by sociology professor [[Stephen A. Kent]], though Kent is not a psychiatrist, never met Hubbard personally, worked from anecdotes, and did not have the essay peer reviewed by psychiatrists or published in a psychiatric journal. The diagnosis is not in standard medical texts, and Kent is considered FRINGE by members of his own field (as told on the Wikipedia page).

Conspiracy to murder and threat to murder are criminal accusations. All these allegations are highly infamous and need reliable sources, but these are the weakest. The article violates [[WP:REDFLAG]]: "Any exceptional claim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources." But as one TEAM member Thimbleweed admitted: ''The problem here is that '''there aren't any proper secondary sources''', we'll have to make do with what we have.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R2-45&diff=721507966&oldid=721490718] None of the other TEAM members objected to that assessment.

Yet the TEAM has repeatedly agreed on the talk page that the article is in tip-top shape,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R2-45&diff=721299193&oldid=721298490]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R2-45&diff=721098542&oldid=721098290]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R2-45&diff=721297325&oldid=721262630] and two members of the TEAM have nominated it for GA.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R2-45&diff=717885604&oldid=717730996], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R2-45&diff=723499614&oldid=723476585]

In AE, '''The Wordsmith''' deprecated Prioryman's editing violations: "The sources are an editorial matter, not a disciplinary one."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=722186892]] But under Arbcom [[WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia|15.1]], editorial and content violations are sanctionable. There is real factor of [[WP:BLP]]. The accusation reaches into present time because Hubbard's words are dogma for the church. The Church leaders, now and in the past, are alive and known by name. Every person who identifies as a Scientologist from [[Tom Cruise]] to John Doe is accused of being in a murder-suicide cult.

Not all editors named edited this article. But all added "consensus".

I am topic banned for a year (as of June 1) for opposing the TEAM. '''The Wordsmith''' presided over the AE, which was wrong:
# '''The Wordsmith''' has a private collection of Scientology literature and knows more about the cult than "most Scientologists"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=722186892] -- i.e., possible [[WP:COI]] (cultist or ex-cultist)
# After filing the AE, complainant Prioryman canvassed '''The Wordsmith''' to preside over the proceeding.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&diff=722934821&oldid=722905187]
# '''The Wordsmith''' banned me as an SPA,[[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfarney&diff=723029755&oldid=722934592] which proved false in the appeal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfarney&diff=723576788&oldid=723491250]
# '''The Wordsmith''' announced that secret information justified the banning,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=723292634#Statement_by_The_Wordsmith] convincing others to affirm the sanction,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&diff=prev&oldid=723096017] but later admitted the secret information was untrue.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=723343487]

The findings were reversed, but the ban remains in place. And the members of the [[R2-45]] TEAM are in violation of Scn ArbCom.

'''NB The Process:''' The sanction "was, in fact, suggested by an Arbitrator I consulted for advice".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=723292634#Statement_by_The_Wordsmith] That Arbitrator should be identified and recused.
:*The topic ban did not (and probably could not) forbid Arbitration, given that this is the last court of appeal. [[user:sfarney|<span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper</span>]] [[user_talk:sfarney|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:*Prioryman is the same ChrisO, an admin sanctioned during the original Scientology [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&diff=723072520&oldid=723072054][[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#ChrisO| ArbComm]] and partially pardoned in 2012.[[WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Modified_by_motion_3|here]] [[user:sfarney|<span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px #88ff88, -1px -1px 1px #8888ff;text-weight:light">Grammar's Li'l Helper</span>]] [[user_talk:sfarney|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Wordsmith ===

=== Statement by Prioryman ===

I think the arbitrators need to determine whether this request is a violation of Sfarney's current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sfarney#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction_2|arbitration sanction]. The issue has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive281#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_sfarney discussed at length] in an appeal by Sfarney at ANI, which upheld the sanction. This seems to be yet another attempt to relitigate it. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 10:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Feoffer ===
=== Statement by Damotclese ===
=== Statement by Slashme ===
=== Statement by Thimbleweed ===
===Statement by uninvolved Softlavender===
Good grief yes, per Prioryman looking at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sfarney#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction_2], this is a clear violation of Sfarney's topic-ban, and he needs a clear sanction/boomerang for this egregious violation. And the TBan should be extended to indefinite, in my view. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 10:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cavarrone ===
As noted above, Sfarney is apparently violating is topic-ban. Also, his complaints were already discussed enough, particularly in his [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_sfarney |AE appeal closure]], which ended confirming his topic ban. There are no new elements, and therefore there is no need for a replay. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 10:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Uninvolved ThePlatypusofDoom ===
As previously stated, Sfarney is in violation of his editing restrictions, and this seems to be filed with the sole purpose of attacking The Wordsmith. [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. [[User:ThePlatypusofDoom|ThePlatypusofDoom]] [[User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom|(Talk)]] 11:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Statement by uninvolved Jbhunley ===
{{u|Sfarney}} is subject to a Scientology topic ban <blockquote> You are prohibited from (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth, for a period of one year. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfarney&diff=723576788&oldid=723491250] </blockquote> and this request is a violation of it. Per [[WP:BANEX]] the only thing he may bring before ARBCOM is an ''appeal of the topic ban'' which he has done at AN resulting in community confirmation of the ban as noted in the diff above. I strongly feel that Sfarney needs a long block <small>(I'd say 4-6 weeks since this has been a long standing issue which has already taken up a lot of community time, they show no sign of letting go and a short block would not serve as a deterrent.)</small> for disruptive editing and violation of an editing sanction to get it through to them to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 15:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mendaliv ===
I would actually like to hear the Committee address, preferably through a motion, the limitations on seeking arbitration on a general case when a topic ban would seem to preclude bringing such a case. My feelings are that we should avoid summarily denying recourse—even where that recourse could be used for abuse—in light of the importance of resolving problems outside of discretionary means. Perhaps ArbCom should require case requests such as these, where the requester has a topic ban, to be preceded by an e-mailed request for leave to file... though I believe such leave should be liberally granted (i.e. unless it's clear the requester is pursuing ArbCom intervention for an abusive purpose). While ArbCom is not a court, general principles of fairness should counsel against slamming the door in the face of an editor who may have a valid complaint.

Apart from that interest, I have no skin in this game. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ===

Not again. First, I agree in principle with [[User:Mendaliv]] that there should be reasonable provisions for appeal. However, topic-banned means topic-banned, and exceptions to allow continued protesting should be very limited, and should have a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] characteristic. Second, in this case there already has been an appeal. The subject chose to appeal to the community, and the topic-ban was upheld by the community. As a result, continuing to appeal is [[vexatious litigation]]. I urge the ArbCom to do one of two things. The first would be to decline this case, but with a very strong warning to the filing party that future filings will result in a site ban. The second would be to accept this filing by motion, in order to consider whether an ArbCom site ban is necessary. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*

Revision as of 20:06, 4 July 2016

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=728348090"