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 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused and 2 who are inactive), so 7 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

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the nuances of WP:OR as applied in this case are sufficiently complex that if I were drafting on a clean slate, I might break that aspect out separately with a bit more explanation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the last sentence, this is not meant to discourage good-faith discussion as to application of the pillars/key policies in particular factual situations or in response to new challenges. (For example, I am sick of simplistic contentions that removing borderline defamatory material from BLPs is unacceptably POV, including one instance when someone threatened to ask the Board to shut down En-Wiki if we strengthened the BLP policy.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Quality of sources

3) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns on the talk page, but this looks like a fairly straightforward summary from WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dueling polarized sources show up far too often in articles. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that presenting a variety of polarized sources should be avoided when there is a better, more neutral alternative. On the other hand, sometimes the polarized sources are all that is out there, and in that case an editor's attempting on his or her own to synthesize a consensus view could accept constitute "original research". Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of accounts

5) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that "meatpuppets," insofar that they're objectionable, are a type of WP:CANVASSing, not sockpuppeteering. I think the remedies should therefore be different, but I do agree that it's a violation of policy in any case. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I've recently addressed some concerns about "meatpuppetry" (the term and the concept) on the proposed decision page in the Ayn Rand case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence seems unnecessary, but I agree with principle. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To CHL's point, I believe the second sentence is drawn from a recent case that involved a somewhat different factual setting from this one, which is why it is slightly off point. Proposed copyedit: "Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That captures this case precisely. If Roger agrees, we should change it before too many others vote. Cool Hand Luke 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. — Roger Davies ^talk 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I have made the copyedit described above, now that all prior voters have concurred with it. Support the essence of the copyedited principle. Risker (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Avoiding apparent impropriety

7) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is adapted (with some minor changes) from the decision I drafted in the C68-FM-SV case. To CHL, see the discussion at the workshop in that case for several users' thoughts on this principle and its wording. The basic idea is that if User:A and User:B reinforce each others' edits so often that several people independent begin to suspect that A and B are either the same user or otherwise doing something wrong, A and B will often be well-advised to adjust their behavior, thereby avoiding the need for a laborious examination of their editing and associated drama or rancor. I'd welcome further thoughts on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'm not sure what "repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors" means, or how it can be avoided by editors. Editors shouldn't agree too much with each other? They should avoid posting on too many of the same talk pages, or fight just to demonstrate they sometimes disagree? Leaning toward oppose. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism

8) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Return of access levels

9) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule.

Support:

Reiteration of current practice, drawn from the Philwelch case with minor wordsmithing. Needed to explain the proposals relating to Jossi below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Single purpose accounts

10) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda.

Support

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some small copyedits made; added "or series of disputes" and substituted words for the pagename acronyms. Any arbitrator disagreeing, please feel free to revert; my support will still stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 has become lower-key but is ongoing and corrosive, involving persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources on multiple articles. 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, and sockpuppetry is rife (examples: [1], [2]).

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made minor copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Church of Scientology

3) Editors using Church of Scientology equipment are focused on Scientology-related articles, [3] and frequently engage in sockpuppetry to avoid sanctions [4], [5]. The Church of Scientology's influence on articles relating to it on Wikipedia has been widely reported internationally by the media since 2005, damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality (examples: The Guardian, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Der Spiegel, The Independent, Forbes and Reuters).

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 14:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Troubled by the one-sidedness of this finding. I think their joint work has actually improved articles over the last two years. Some individuals need to be dealt with in this case, but I oppose blanket sanctions on anyone using a COFS IP address. Cool Hand Luke 15:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Refactored by Durova's request. Cool Hand Luke 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 3.1. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Prefer 3.1 and 3.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ditto Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustained POV editing

3.1) Over a lengthy time period, Scientology-related articles have been subject to biased or aggressive editing that has failed to comply with the fundamental policy of NPOV. This has involved both some editors who appear to be supporters of Scientology, often editing from the Church of Scientology's own facilities and IP address, as well as some opponents of Scientology.

Support:

Proposed as alternate, together with 3.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is a case about troubling editor conduct. Cool Hand Luke 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

BLP violations

3.2) Editing of several articles concerning individuals associated with Scientology and/or with opposition to Scientology has violated aspects of our policy governing biographies of living persons.

Support:

Proposed as alternate, together with 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Abstain for now. There has been clear NPOV volation but although there has been much commotion about it in the workshop the purported BLP violations are not clear cut. — Roger Davies ^talk 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would like a few diffs to go with this FOF. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt

4) From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not appear to have deliberately violated policy and/or deliberately misused administrative tools.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 16:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would not be opposed to a timeframe suggestion, but I think it's implied that he hasn't deliberately violated policy since receiving his administrative tools. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that explicit. — Roger Davies ^talk 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now with the timeframe delineated. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I think it is undisputed that at an earlier stage of his Wikipedia career, there were issues with Cirt's editing, so this requires a time frame for best evaluation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added the RfA date. — Roger Davies ^talk 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

— Roger Davies ^talk 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I consider the Cirt finding different because he was alleged to have violated administrative policy. We should address that sort of charge because we're the only body that can resolve it. In this case, no "exoneration" should be included; anyone we don't address in findings is presumed to be unproblematic (or at least not so problematic that ArbCom should caution them). Cool Hand Luke 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

As in the Eastern European disputes (f/k/a Piotrus 2) case, I am not sure whether "exoneration" findings are best included in published final decisions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi

6) During the course of this proceeding, in which certain allegations had been made against Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jossi voluntarily resigned his adminship on 23 December 2008 by email to the Arbitration Committee, when he stated he was retiring from Wikipedia.

Support:

With remedy 1 below. Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Roger Davies ^talk 14:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added "in which certain allegations had been made against Jossi"; the fact that the resignation occurred during an arbitration case is the basis for the remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

John254

7) During the course of this proceeding, John254 (talk · contribs) was banned by the community for sockpuppetry[6]. Among his other infractions, John254 edited the case pages in this arbitration under two different usernames (John254 and Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs)), presenting inconsistent workshop proposals, with the apparent intent of causing drama and inflaming the dispute; this was not the first time in which John254 appeared intent on creating unnecessary controversy on already drama-laden dispute-resolution pages.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 14:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added second sentence to tie the finding into this case and set up any related remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Misou

8) Misou (talk · contribs) is a Scientology-focused single purpose account[7] who has edited from Scientology-operated equipment both on Wikipedia[8] and on WikiNews[9]; has been blocked on Wikipedia for personal attacks and incivility[10]; has been blocked on WikiNews for concealing connections with the Church of Scientology[11]; and still persists in incivility (examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Are there more recent examples of incivility? The en.wp blocks and diffs are all from 2007. Cool Hand Luke 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hardly posted in 2008 apart from in this and another proceeding. — Roger Davies ^talk 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justallof them

9) Justallofthem (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who has serially breached policy to advance his/her point of view. Disruptive behaviour includes sockpuppetry (examples: [18]); harassment and personal attacks (examples: [19], [20], [21]); and arguably abusing AfD processes (examples: [22], [23], [24], [25] and [26]).

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Clear behavioral problems with Cirt, but I don't think user has abused AfD process. He's apparently nominated articles in good faith, and several of them have been deleted, including several ridiculously problematic BLPs. More than any other, this AfD convinced me that we should default to delete for BLPs. That biography was created and maintained by apparent USENET enemies with the apparent intent of mocking the subjects—I don't think I would have behaved much differently. Cool Hand Luke 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the issue of marginally notable BLPs is a systemic one and the behaviour exhibited is not that far from the norm currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justallofthem 9.1

9.1) Justallofthem (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who has serially breached policy to advance his/her point of view. Disruptive behaviour includes sockpuppetry (examples: [27]); harassment and personal attacks (examples: [28], [29], [30]).

Support

Alternative, sans AfD. — Roger Davies ^talk 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Shutterbug

10) Shutterbug (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who has serially breached policy to advance his/her point of view and has a long history of disruption. Disruptive behaviour includes: sockpuppetry on Wikipedia (examples: [31], [32]); ban evasion on WikiNews (example: [33]); breached neutrality policies (example: [34]); been incivil (example: [35]); inproperly removed sourced material (examples: [36] and [37]).

Support:

Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jayen466

11) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively and tendentiously, edit-warring and misrepresenting policy, particularly that relating to biographies of living people and sources, to advance his/her own agenda (examples: [38], [39], [40] and [41]).

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)~~ Abstaining for now. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I don't think that Jayen is a single purpose account by any definition. He has over 200 edits to Six Sigma and edits mainstream travel, politics, pop-culture, and other areas. There do seem to be some BLP problems, but does not fall under WP:SPA. Cool Hand Luke 13:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. It depends how you slice the data and it's not really important.— Roger Davies ^talk 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's about 50/50 to me. That's not an SPA. Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

13) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

15) {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.

Jossi's administrator status

1) Because Jossi gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.

Support:

Accord Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Philwelch's administrator status. Cool Hand Luke 06:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sometimes accused of being too legalistic on the arbitration pages; I don't even want to think about what would have been said if I'd preceded a citation in a decision with the signal "accord". Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Expanded the wiki-abbreviation). Risker (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is worthwhile to spell this out in the decision, but note that this result would have followed automatically even if we didn't vote this, unless we voted the opposite. See proposed principle 9 above. (The main purpose of the last sentence of the principle is to avoid a situation where the committee feels that it has to take up a case that might otherwise have become moot in light of a resignation, as occurred in the Konstable case and arguably in Philwelch as well. Here, the case had already been accepted and continued to deal with other issues in any event.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it's only worth finding here to resolve any ambiguity; it was apparently unclear whether we would apply the rule in this case. Cool Hand Luke 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked

2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies.

Support:

I think this is supported by Cirt's new evidence.[42] Would clarify that they can be blocked as if they were open proxies, although they clearly are not (perhaps these addresses are internal proxies or perhaps serial sock puppets are at work here). As with open proxy blocks, established editors can apply for an IP block exemption, which may be granted or revoked with cause. This will control any socks coming in, instead of the status quo (which appears to be at-will checkuser for pro-Scientologists). In the future, we may presume that pro-Scientologists without an IP block exemption are not editing from a COS IP. Cool Hand Luke 01:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discretionary topic ban

3) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, may ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

For the purposes of this sanction, the topic embraces all articles and talk pages relating to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly interpreted, and any associated article-related processes (for example: WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N. All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of discretionary topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Single purpose accounts

4) If, in the judgement of any uninvolved administrator, an editor is focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists, then the editor may be topic banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

For the purposes of this sanction, the topic embraces all articles and talk pages relating to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly interpreted, and any associated article-related processes (for example: WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N. All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of single purpose account topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Account limitation

5) Any editor who is subject to sanctions 3 or 4 is limited to using one and only one current or future account to edit. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely. (Principle: cf. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2.)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Behaviour and consequences

6) All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks, or else topic banned, until the situation improves.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Replaces

4) Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and to foster a productive editing environment.

~~Support:~~
~~Oppose:~~

Oh, so this is where those weird "exoneration" findings come from, eh? I didn't participate in the Ayn Rand case, so I would like to voice my objection to this remedy here. I don't think we should be in the business of exonerations. The community always retains the right to issue sanctions. If this proposal is trying to say that others may be brought in for Arbitration enforcement, as Coren said here, I would greatly prefer if we simply say that. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors instructed

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

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

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the topic ban specified in Remedy 3 to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions.

17) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to a month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Cirt

3) In the interests of avoiding apparent impropriety and allegations of involvement, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to refrain from enforcing discretionary sanctions under the provisions of this case.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this would be a prerequisite for any admin thinking of using admin powers in an area s/he was involved in anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Log of topic bans and blocks

4) List here editors who have been placed on editing restriction by notice on their talk page, per remedies 3 and 4, and provide a diff for the warning.

Support:

— Roger Davies ^talk 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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.