Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shutterbug (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 1 June 2009 (→Statement by User:Shutterbug). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71 Motions 26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Request for clarification: Appeals process none none 30 May 2009
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology (2) none none 30 May 2009
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology (1) none none 31 May 2009
Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2 none none 27 May 2009
Request for clarification: How to appeal to the community none none 13 May 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:Anynobody|Request for clarification: User:Anynobody]] none none 29 May 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:Shutterbug|Request for clarification: User:Shutterbug]] none none 30 May 2009

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Appeals process

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

Statement by FT2

With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertant? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.

(If this has been addressed elsewhere or doesn't need a clarification, please just fix any instructions which need to show it, and remove this request.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology (2)

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

Statement by FT2

This is a request for a minor clarification or amendment of remedy #2 (IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology), to avoid a point of contention that is sure to arise some time soon.

The ruling states, "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses."

Could the Committee clarify that this covers IP addresses reasonably believed to be owned or operated by the CoS, or that appear to be substantively used for that purpose or on their behalf, not just those where "ownership" is formally proven through an IP registrar or "operated by" is claimed (and disputed).

This guidance would be worth obtaining before any blocks start hitting the administrators' incident or arbitration enforcement noticeboards, and because it is an obvious block evasion/wikilawyering tactic (obtaining new IP addresses not visibly "owned or operated" by CoS, even "broadly interpreted", would be trivially easy).

FT2 (Talk | email) 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of need
"Or controlled" is a statement of fact (an IP is or is not "controlled or operated by the Church"). As often stated in sock cases, we don't have the ability to look through the wires, and administrators will not have it with this organization. We would have instead, usage that looks like scientology co-ordinated usage, but no visible "ownership" and some evidence tending to show possible "operation by the Church" itself.
With sockpuppetry in general we have the principle, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (Case link). As future blocks are predictable, and to avoid unnecessary issues, I ask the committee to give explicit confirmation that the same principle is intended to apply here. Ie that the following is a correct statement of the intent and interpretation of the remedy:-
  • For the purposes of dispute resolution, administrators do not have to formally prove an IP is "owned or operated by". It is sufficient that it is reasonable to believe the IP is owned or operated by CoS or its proxies, or that it is substantively used for that purpose or on their behalf.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The wording was intended to give admin and checkusers wide latitude in blocking ip addresses that are under the direct control of the CofS. IMO, the wording, "or operated by", covers the situation that you describe. Any more detailed wording could introduce more confusion not less. With additional remedies, "Account limitation, and Editors instructed, I think we have all the bases covered. As always, admins and checkusers will look at each situation on a case by case basis before they make these blocks so we can discuss anything unusual then. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, the point of the particular remedy is to specifically modify the use of ip addresses owned and directly controlled by the CofS, so if you are referring to a more general coordinated editing of the topic by people acting on the direction of the CofS, then it would not apply. But as I pointed out, other remedies and our policies would apply to all editor of the Scientology topic. In every instance, an admin and/or checkusers will be looking at the particular details and making a decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or operated by" includes IPs controlled but not directly owned by COFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intent of the remedy is that if an IP is under the control of the CoS, then is should be blocked. The "or operated by" makes it clear that direct ownership is not necessary— as is often the case when IP blocks are concerned, administrator and checkuser interpretation and determination is expected. — Coren (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology (1)

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

Statement by Touretzky

I haven't logged into my Wikipedia account in quite a while, so I was not aware that I had been dragged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology until a friend told me today that I'd been topic banned. I wish to protest this ban as unjustified.

A look at my edit history shows that I have not edited any Scientology-related article since 2007. (Been busy doing other things.) I contributed a few typo/grammar fixes in 2008, but none of those articles were about Scientology. It is unreasonable to topic ban me in 2009 when I've never received any kind of reprimand or caution about any edits I've made, and have done nothing wrong, even when I was editing Scientology articles back in 2007.

Second, the ruling criticizes me for editing the article on Applied Scholastics and for including a link to my StudyTech.org web site. The StudyTech.org web site is the primary reference for anyone who wants a critical look at the subject. That is why the current Applied Scholastics article, which I have not touched since 2007, continues to link to StudyTech.org; any article that did not link to this resource would be incomplete. I don't think it's Wikpedia policy that only non-experts can edit an article. And I contest the claim that my edits are self-interested. People write about what they know. Being a Scientology critic shouldn't prohibit me from editing Scientology-related articles any more than being a Scientologist would.

Being topic banned is humiliating and, in my case, unjustified. I'd like to request that this ban be rescinded.

Response to Shutterbug
The studytech.org web site contains an extensive archive of newspaper and magazine articles about Applied Scholastics, its affiliated organizations, and study technology, going back as far as 1980. It contains a well-researched article by Chris Owen about the organizational structure of Applied Scholastics and its relationship to the Church of Scientology. It contains a sentence-by-sentence comparison of the supposedly secular Basic Study Manual (an Applied Scholastics publication) with Scientology religious scripture. It also contains a roughly 15,000 word critical essay by me and Chris Owen with extensive quotations and citations. There is no other resource anywhere on the web, including Applied Scholastics' own web sites, that contains comparable information. Studytech.org is listed as recommended further reading by John T. Hatfield, Benjamin J. Hubbard, and James A. Santucci in their book An Educator's Classroom Guide to America's Religious Beliefs and Practices (2007): see p. 98. (You can "look inside this book" at Amazon.com.) What Shutterbug attempts to dismiss as a "personal web site" is in fact the primary critical resource on the web for learning about study technology and Applied Scholastics. Wikipedia articles must be NPOV, but there is no requirement that external links point only to sites that are NPOV. So if it's impermissible to include this site in the list of external links at the end of a Wikipedia article, I'd like to know why, because I really don't get it. -- Touretzky (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd response to Shutterbug
WP:RS applies to sources used to support statements in Wikipedia articles; it does not apply to the external links section at the end of an article. Sites that WP:RS would frown upon (e.g., wikis, personal web pages) are common in external links sections. For example, the article on Kirstie Alley includes an external link to a Star Trek wiki. In any case, topic banning me in May 2009 for having added an external link back in October 2007 is absurd. -- Touretzky (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Thatcher
Thank you for the pointer to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links. I understand the policy and will adhere to it. However, the language about "convenience links" that you are referring to now, in May 2009, did not exist in the version that was current in October 2007. Furthermore, this policy refers to links used in citations. What I'm being taken to task for is adding an external link, so the relevant policy would seem to be WP:EL. I believe I can make a good case for an external link to studytech.org in accordance with the current version of WP:EL, but the place to do that would be the article's Talk page, which I am now banned from editing. My purpose here is to argue that topic banning a user who has never received any sort of caution from any Wikipedia admin, for a link they added in good faith 19 months ago, is not a reasonable way to instruct someone in the finer points of Wikipedia editorial policy. Telling them to do penance for six months (in Scientology this would be called an amends project) and then apply to have the ban lifted does not make this action any more reasonable. -- Touretzky (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shutterbug

Comment: Reading the appeal of Touretzky I find that he did not get it. His personal websites are not an authoritative source for anything but his own state of mind and him pushing them into Wikipedia articles is exactly what he was topic-banned for. Shutterbug (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DT: Dave, read up on Wikipedia policy, will you? Quiz: Copies of secondary sources hosted on private attack websites. Allowed per WP:RS or not? Shutterbug (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Perhaps this motion should be expanded to include other editors who had not edited the topic for a very long time before the case began. Intending this equally toward both 'sides': it's about principle, not ideology. Wikipedia remedies are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. It is unlikely that any sanctions proposal against an editor who hadn't touched a topic since 2007 would have passed--or even been taken seriously--if similar proposals had gone up at AN or ANI. That applies generally, not simply to long term disputes.

When you go for the nuclear option, you may get Chernobyl. Indiscriminate and/or punitive sanctions could make the topic radioactive. Looking ahead, I worry about the long term impact upon this topic if the uninvolved Wikipedians whose assistance the Committee seeks to encourage become fearful to make the attempt. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zippy

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

Comment: I've read the arbitration decision and User:Touretzky's appeal. Given the evidence that Touretzky presents, it seems reasonable to reconsider the topic ban on this editor. If there were activity in the past year in support of this ban, or examples of egregiously disruptive behavior, I would think otherwise, but I fail to see such evidence. --Zippy (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to and agreement with Durova: This is also what I am thinking. Let's say we're dealing with a user who makes edits in good faith, whether they get the ethos of the Wikipedia or not. This is pretty common, and the normal action is to guide the user, warn them if the behavior continues, and block as a last resort, but even then, block only for a short amount of time (a day, a week).
In this case, we have a user, Touretzky, who made edits that the arbitration committee has decided are not in keeping with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. The edits were over a year ago, and Touretzky says he received no warning at the time, yet did not create any more events deemed worthy of arbitration attention or warning or sanction.
Whether the user gets it or not is missing the point. I believe that bringing down the ban-hammer on a user as step one, or even step n, is premature if they a) have not received guidance from the community at the time the edit occurred, and b) have not continued to make edits that go against the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.
In this case, Touretzky is engaged in a dialog with the greater Wikipedia community, something that can be achieved with less than a topic ban. I would rather that we assume good faith and allow this user to be free of the mark of sanction so long as his present behavior is within the norms of so many other editors who have yet to fully grok Wikipedia. By topic banning, I believe we are more likely to lose an editor than we are to bring them up to speed. --Zippy (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Thatcher

The object of the decision is to require single-purpose editors on Scientology topics, or on Scientology aspects of other topics (such as [1] to demonstrate a commitment to Wikipedia's model of cooperative editing by editing other topics for a while; the ban may be appealed after 6 months. Regarding studytech.org, it is not a reliable source as such. Where it contains newspaper articles and other reliable content, the appropriate practice is to cite the original source, even if it is not online and can not be made an active link. There are several reasons for this, primarily a) a site hosting a copy of someone else's copyrighted news article may be infringing on the original copyright and Wikipedia frowns on contributory infringement, and b) there is a risk that partisan archives may not be completely accurate. For more information see the "Convenience links" section of Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Thatcher 12:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2

Statement by Will Beback

WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2 closed in April. One of the remedies reads:

Revert limitations
3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

There is a dispute over the exact meaning of this remedy, especially the last sentence. User:Sandstein contends that I violated it and blocked me for it, while I believe that he is misinterpreting the remedy and the relevant edits. In response to a complaint at WP:AE#Teachings of Prem Rawat by Jayen466, Sandstein blocked both myself and Pergamino.

  • My first edit: [5] This edit added a section of material.
  • A series of edits by Pergamino: [6][7][8][9] These edits altered the text I'd posted, and moved it, but did not revert my addition of the basic text.
  • My second edit: [10] This edit undid Pergamino's edits (on account of his failure to discuss them).

So I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit, and hence there was no violation of the remedy. If the intent of the committee is to prohibit repeating the same edit within a one week period, which is what some folks seem to think it says, then it should be made explicit because it does not seem to say that now. If the block did not follow the existing wording of the remedy then I request an acknowledgment that there was an error.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LessHeard vanU
There are two clauses to the remedy. The first prohibits making more than one revert in a week. LessHeard vanU seems to be proposing that it says no reverts are permitted. However the enforcement actually concerned the more complicated second clause, which says, I believe, that if an edit is reverted it may not be restored for a week. I contend that my original edit was only altered, not reverted, and that this situation is not covered by the language of the remedy.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to AGK
It wrong to say that I reverted instead of discussing. On the contrary, I reverted the changes because the editor who made them didn't explain them or even leave accurate edit summaries. The talk page shows ample discussion on my part. Commenting without ascertainng the facts first isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate AGK's clarification and accept his apology.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Roger Davies
Roger writes: "It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited."
The remedy says: "No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period,..."
So regarding the first clause, there seems to be a disagreement over whether it's "1RR" or "0RR". However this clarification principally concerns the second clause, which is more difficult to interpret. It seems to say that you may not restore your edit if someone reverts it. It does not seem to say that if someone changes your work you may not revert it. That's the crux of this clarification request.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Newyorkbrad
I have edited numerous contentious issues on Wikipedia for nearly five years, and have made over 90,000 edits, without ever having been blocked before. On the same day that I was blocked an article I wrote related to this topic was promoted to featured status. I sincerely believed at the time I made the edit in question that I was following the applicable remedy. If this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it then I suggest that it is not clearly written, and that it will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders, which in turn may lead to the topic once again becoming dominated by single purpose editors. That would be counterproductive to the overall intent of the ArbCom's decision in this case.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sandstein/FloNight
This is intended as a clarification of the remedy, but that necessarily involves discussing whether the remedy was interpreted correctly by Sandstein. Sandstein eventually said that the blocks were to enforce the second clause of the remedy: "...if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." (emphasis added) It's my contention that the changes I made were not reverted. I request that Sandstein or FloNight please provide the diffs showing the supposed revert. If there was no revert then either Sandstein misinterpreted the remedy, or the remedy does not mean what it says and so it should be reworded to reflect the actual intent of the committee.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Pergamino himself claims that he did not revert my changes. Rather, he says below that he "made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit".   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note
I've e-mailed the committee requesting that this discussion be suspended pending the resolution of a related matter.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

If content is added by party A which is then "altered" in part or whole by party B and party A then removes those alterations so that the content is the same as when party A added it, what other term than "reverting" applies to the actions of party A? Is Will Beback arguing that the wording only applies to the reverting of a (whole) revert? This would make the remedy comparable with WP:WHEEL - where it is only the reverting by an admin of another sysops revision of the original admin action that triggers that situation. My reading, as provided at AE, is that any edit that substantially undoes another contributors edits to a section of content to return it to the previous or original edit is a revert and not allowable until 8 days has elapsed since the first edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback; I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert"; you appear to argue that only a wholesale revert of the original edit (in this case the introduction of content) would thus mean you should not return the content (the revert noted in the remedy) within the 7 days, whereas my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Roger Davies; "Clarification" is why we are here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Newyorkbrad; Further to the above response to Roger Davies, it is because there may be good faith interpretation of remedy or decision that differs from which is intended (or understood to be that intended) that there needs to be careful application of language. This is a Wiki after all, and while the best is always the intention it may be found that better is yet to come. Against the necessary restrictions provided to diminish disruption there are the allowances that provide editors with the freedom to try to improve content within their understanding of policy. Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

This is just in case I am expected to make a statement here as an involved party. With respect to the interpretation of the remedy at issue, I do not think that I have anything to say in addition to what I have already said in the discussion threads linked to above.  Sandstein  21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

  • "Revert limitations ¶ 3.1) ... Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." [Emphasis added]
  • LessHeard vanU (21:04) states, "I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert";..."
  • Will Beback (20:05) states, "I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit..." ([11])
  • LHvU (13:07) states, "...what other term than "reverting" applies...". LHvU (21:04) states, "...my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy."


This clarification seems to turn on whether Pergamino did or did not take an action defined as a "revert" during these four edits: Pergamino 17:56, Pergamino 18:04, Pergamino 18:08, Pergamino 18:14; and also, what other term than "reverting" applies to Pergamino's four edits.

A dictionary definition of "revert" requires a return to a former condition:

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, but they don't seem to have been changes that returned WB's text to a former condition. Thus they don't seem to described by a dictionary definition of "revert".

Wikipedia Help makes a distinction between "revert" and "reword", as well as between "revert" and "modifying":

  • Help:Reverting#When to revert reads: "...if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit..."' [Emphasis added]

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, that appear to be consistent with "reword" and "modifying", which Wikipedia Help distingishes from "revert" or "reverting".

My analysis of the above facts concludes that Pergamino did not revert Will Beback's original edit, as defined by both a dictionary and Wikipedia Help. Without a revert by Pergamino, Will Beback was free to revert Pergamino's reword and modifying edits without violating WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations 3.1. Milo 03:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Newyorkbrad
I agree with LessHeard vanU's thoughtful exposition (17:59 to NYB), including "Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met." The alternative is a form of rough justice whereunder editors with fine-parsing skills, useful in locating the neutral point of view, will be chilled into avoiding topics under arbitration restrictions. In another case, section #Review of articles urged, the committee urged "...knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved..." to "...address any perceived or discovered deficiencies." A lack of commitment to progressive rewording of demonstrably misunderstandable remedies, sends a counter-message to users not previously involved: Look what happened to an editor who tried to follow the rules – stay away. Milo 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

Sandtein's block of the editors was quite correct; one simply needs to take five minutes to review the arbitration enforcement thread to evaluate so. Will Beback's complaint therefore, I suggest, is with the validity of the arbitration decision: evidently, he is contesting it because he finds it to be unfair.

It is the Committee who are responsible for hearing complaints over past cases. Jury nullification is largely absent from arbitration enforcement. In this case, Sandstein did as required: he evaluated the complaint against prior Committee decisions and acted accordingly. No blame lies with him.

As to whether the Prem Rewat decision itself is conducive to a positive editing atmosphere (as enquired by NYB below), I confess myself to be fairly unfamiliar with the subject area and therefore not confident in my ability to offer a reliable response. However, it does strike me that, in the lack of widespread complaints from editors of the subject area that the arbitration decision is proving a serious hindrance to editing, this may clarification may simply be the manifestation of an editor's frustration at being called out for resorting to reverting rather than to discussion.

AGK 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback
Generally, the response to an editor who makes an edit without offering a rationale, either in his edit summary or on the article talk page, is to open a discussion—and not to revert the change. I would concede that, practically, the situation may dictate that the appropriate response to an undiscussed change may be slightly different, but I hope you see the reasoning behind my comment. I didn't intend to dishonour your record as a quite reasonable and sensible editor, and would apologise if you felt I did. AGK 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pergamino

What Will Beback is not saying is that the initial edit he made, although it was discussed, it was not agreed upon. Actually, there were many well-argued objections for that edit, but he decided he knew better and made the edit despite the objections. I came along and made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit. Will Beback's rationale to delete what I did and put back his version again, is that I didn't discuss it first. So basically, Will Beback is applying rules in an arbitrary manner: If he adds text that was discussed but not agreed, it's OK if he does it, but if I attempt to improve upon his work, then it's "undiscussed" and can be summarily deleted (BTW, he never said what was wrong with my edits, so I was left guessing). He also claims that the rule established by the arbiters "will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders", when in fact is that by not following the rule he is doing exactly that. Furthermore, he claims that "this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it" — but me and other people told him several times that he had it wrong, and suggested to him to undo the edit so it will not be in violation of the rule, explanations that he ignored in toto. Is it too much to ask from Will BeBack to listen to his experienced peers, take it on the chin, and promise not to act like this again? Pergamino (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse, per previous involvement in the topic area, in accord with my recusal from the relevant arbitration case. --Vassyana (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The remedy refers to "any given changes" and uses the plural "changes" four times, apart from in the final sentence ("repeat the change"). It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited. I suppose, for the avoidance of any doubt, "the change" could be amended to "the change/s" and will support that if there's sufficient agreement from my colleagues but I'm not convinced it's necessary.  Roger Davies talk 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It strikes me that, rather than just finely parse the meaning of "revert" or "change" in the decision as we might if this were constitutional interpretation or biblical scholarship, an equally important question is which interpretation would best serve the purposes of the decision and the remedy, which were to allow for continued editing and improvement of the article as a part of the encyclopedia while minimizing sterile edit-warring. I'd welcome comments on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sandstein's interpretation of the the sanction. And per the related discussions at, AE and AN/I, the consensus was that the blocks were administered in a fair way. The intend of the proposal is to create an atmosphere where discussion is used to settle content disagreements instead of reverting. Hopefully overtime this will help us reach the goal of stable articles that are well sourced and written from a NPOV. I think it is too soon to judge the success of the remedies. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: How to appeal to the community

Look, if you don't want to handle an issue, say so, and help me work out how it should be taken to the community. Archiving it while several unresponded issues are still up is just disrespectful.

The case involved huge amounts of procedural issues, that, at the least, meant the case could not be decided fairly, had no previous dispute resolution, ignored the belated dispute resolution entirely, and had documented wagon-circling by the Arbcom to protect one of their own, while going on a grand fishing expedition check of every admin action I had ever made in order to find something - anything - to justify the case against me being taken long after the person in question had been unblocked. Furthermore, I can't help ut think this was all an effort to subvert the Arbcom elections, which I was running in. At the least, this deserves a promise never to allow such a thing to happen again.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by arbitrators

Appeals of Committee decisions may be made to Jimbo Wales. If you then want to appeal his response to someone else, you'll have to discuss the proper procedure with him personally.

As far as the substance of your comments goes: we are not able to act on your request because you have not been able to provide a consistent answer about what it is you're actually asking for. Going through your comments on this request and the last one, I can see at least eight distinct requests (or what looks to me like requests):

  1. That we declare all findings in the case, including those not about you, invalid
  2. That we rescind the restriction on your seeking adminship in the future which was left in place after the last change to the case
  3. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the case should not have been accepted
  4. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the handling of the case suffered from procedural errors
  5. That we should change the text of the case pages to be an analysis of the mistakes made during the case
  6. That we should apologize for our handling of the case
  7. That we should admit wrongdoing in regards to our handling of the case
  8. That we should promise not to repeat our handling of the case

Some of these—broadly, the latter six—are, in my opinion, reasonable requests; the first two, however, are not. I see no substantive reason to rescind our finding that Matthew Hoffman was innocent of the charges against him; and I do not believe it would be in the best interests of the project for you to seek adminship without talking to us.

Generally speaking, though, it is incumbent on you to tell us precisely what action you want us to take; please feel free to just name items off the list above, if that helps, but we're not going to come up with something on our own when there's no guarantee that it will satisfy you. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Anynobody

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

Statement by Anynobody

I was topic banned in the recent second Scientology arbitration case, for stuff I did months before the first Scientology arbitration case which occurred in summer 2008.

There is something fundamentally wrong with banning me from this topic since not only was this "evidence" ignored in the first case but I also haven't violated the terms given from that case.

Other topic bans from same case

I noticed that some of the editors banned, on both sides, haven't edited for quite some time. For example CSI LA last edited in 2007 and the same goes for Orsini Why are these two being topic banned after having escaped scrutiny (or even participation) in the first arbcom case AND not made an edit since 2007?

None of the graphics I made are meant to disparage anyone or anything and directly reflect the available sources. The image of DC-8s arriving on Earth for Xenu was meant to replace an already made illustration created by modifying a photo of NASA's DC-8 in space with the word Xenu on its tail.

Lastly, this arbitration reaffirmed that I previously harassed Justanother. I submit that the whole allegation if harassing Justanother (aka Justallofthem) stems from my attempt to get a WP:RFC/U going regarding his behavior. After the last arbitration I've not had any real contact with him, and he's been banned for the same type of behavior I was trying to call attention to in the first place. WP:HA#What harassment is not says A user warning for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. I've never called for him to be banned or demanded punishment, all I asked for was a RFC when it appeared he was having similar problems with several editors through giving the community an opportunity to comment. Anynobody(?) 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shutterbug

Anynobody, this a cumulative decision based on all your "bad deeds". I am curious to see how the article develops without us. Let the clueless rule! Shutterbug (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

Either there's more to the case against Anynobody or there isn't. From only what's posted within the case pages, which isn't much, I don't know.

I looked at each "POV" diff (two) and each "disparaging" graphic (five). The diffs are fairly ordinary-looking edits, and would seem to be POV only if not reliably sourceable. The graphics are documentation of a type permitted as original research or describable primary sources. Two of the graphics would seem to be disparaging (by the editor) only if they weren't based on reliable sources. I don't know if they were or weren't based on reliable sources in the details, but in the current article, the LA Times seems to back the core issue that Anynobody was editing.

If these edits were based on reliable sources, then Anynobody must have done something notable within the article talk pages that merited the "POV" and "disparaging" charges. Did he? I don't know.

The fact-finding mentioned that prior arbitration determined that Anynobody harassed Justanother. I looked at that case, and it determined that Anynobody "complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence". Well, now that Justa* has been banned from the entire project, one might reasonably conclude that Justa* was a frequent and persistent problem under the radar. In any case, with Justa* gone, a remedy against Anynobody inclusive of that reason lacks a preventive purpose, so I suggest tagging it with a note of 'No longer relevant to a preventative remedy since Justa(names) has been site banned by another remedy of this case'.

My tentative conclusion is that there is either no substantive case against Anynobody, or it's a case that's been presented with insufficient specificity. If there is no substantive case, the topic ban and restriction should be rescinded. If there is a substantive case, please present it so Anynobody can either defend his actions, or avoid doing again whatever he supposedly did that was so bad it deserved a topic ban. Milo 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: User:Shutterbug

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

Statement by User:Shutterbug

I was topic banned in the Scientology arbitration (the one that is all over the media right now). The Arbitrary Committee says:

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. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.

Where do I find the IP addresses covered by this? Which ones exactly "are to be blocked"? Please clarify. Shutterbug (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FT2
FT2, no, this is not "equally to all users". This is for users who allegedly edit from a "Church of Scientology IP Block", which - quite inherently, I guess - would only be used by members of the Church of Scientology, whether they are new Wikipedia editors, established ones or not registered at all. It is a measure punishing a group of people solely based on their chosen religion. The media - lots of "reliable sources" - report that the "Scientologists are banned from editing Wikipedia"[12][13]. Can someone please clarify what this means in real life? What "IP Block" are we talking about here [14]? What are "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology"? Shutterbug (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: This comment was initially added in FT2's section; I have shifted it to its present position and added the "Response to FT2" formatting. Please edit only your own section. Thanks, AGK 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Roger
Roger, I might refer you to what I said in the ArbCom. Packing up and leaving is not an option. Also hiding isn't. Shutterbug (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FloNight
FloNight, thanks for the clarification. I did not follow the ArbCom much in the past weeks so I learned about your decision from the media and went to the Church to asked some questions how their internet lines are set up now, in 2009 (it was a proxy/firewall system several years ago). Well, the three locations I checked use dynamic IPs (DSL line) in one place, fixed IPs in another and the third place where I could get an answer used a proxy/firewall with a fixed IP. That's why I asked. It means who ever edits Scientology-related articles in the future will be subject of witch hunting again and keep Checkusers busy. BTW, I also checked with several staff that would know if anyone from the ArbCom, Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had contacted the Church in the course of this whole procedure. Negative, no communication at all. So the Arbcom did an "arbitration" without even inviting the participation of those who are effected by its decision. Shutterbug (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FT2
Thank you for the explanation. This unfortunately shows that you do not have insight in how the Church of Scientology works and who is doing or should be doing what there. This could have been helped by contacting them but the ArbCom chose not to, thus triggering off one of the bigger slander campaigns against the Church in years. Thanks much. As a church member I am disgusted about this project, as a Wikipedia editor ("editing is a privilege"?) I would say those Wikipedia policies better be applied, not arbitrary blocks and bans. But we will see how this develops. I keep on watching. Jay Walsh[15], in any case, did say this on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation: Blocking users or groups of computers is “the last course of action” that the arbitration committee takes after communicating with both sides involved.[16]. Shutterbug (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Durova
Propaganda by leaving out time. We have nothing to talk about. Shutterbug (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Coren
Thanks, I think that settles my question. Shutterbug (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FT2

As a community, we tend not to provide to users forbidden to edit or restricted, a full list of "IPs they cannot edit from". As you yourself are (as you rightly say) topic banned, and also a bunch of IPs closely related to CoS editing are blocked, the question is likely (as Roger says) moot.

This isn't specific to "you". It applies equally to all users and any dispute, whose actions are such that an IP range needed to be blocked to prevent their improper activities. That is quite an extreme measure, and is not taken lightly.

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Shutterbug

It is in fact equal to all users. Any user whose actions are sufficiently disruptive, will be told eventually "sorry, you can't edit on our website". Users are also told (and have been for years):

  • If we cannot distinguish users sharing IPs, then we may treat them all as socks or co-ordinated editors, and
  • If an IP range becomes sufficiently disruptive, then we owe no favors, it will be blocked until such time as we feel it is no longer at risk of being a source of disruption.

In fact the CoS is not being "punished". Whether as an organization, or by extending facilities to its members, or both, the CoS appears to have had its computers used, for a range of disruptive editing behaviors that are not permitted here. Possibly they endorsed, facilitated, or enabled it, possibly it really was just a bunch of users they allowed onto their systems. All organizations are responsible for the usage of their computers when it impacts on others. If you run a library and your computer is used for pornography or hacking, it will be blacklisted even if you as a librarian were not doing these things. So the ranges that might be called upon for this disruption, are blocked.

In making that decision, the nature or name of the organization is not significant and unimportant in and of itself. The sole factor is that despite past cases, its IPs continue to be a persistent source of harmful editing. To save you worrying that CoS might be being picked on, note that range blocks are applied in many cases of disruption and vandalism, where they are needed to frustrate easy access by other disruptive individuals or groups.

Wikipedia editing is a privilege, not a suicide pact; persistent known "high risks", or sources of disruption, are not necessarily desirable in this encyclopedia project. If there are "good faith" users who can and have faithfully followed all of our policies every time they edit Wikipedia, then as the Committee have said, IP block exemption may be applied for by those few.

Past actions have not yet met with a substantive change for the better. We can be fairly sure CoS knew about them; it's extremely unlikely that arbcom cases and blocks wouldn't be "known" internally, that they don't track the articles on them, have no awareness of their own computers' usage over 4 years, or that in all that time not one person of any standing in 12 million members was involved in editing or got to hear about the blocks or past cases.

If CoS had been serious about not wanting to have this action imposed upon them and upon all who edit from CoS related computers, they have had the option several times to desist, or to impose conditions on those using the computers. Evidently, according to the evidence, they did not realize it was necessary to manage their computer usage, chose not to prevent the activity, or did not do so effectively. Either way this is the result, and it is a response to disruption, not a "pro/anti" anything. We would (and have) done the same to schools, libraries, and other highly disruptive ISP ranges, when these have acted as a persistent source of disruption.

As for the media, they are free to report this or call it what they like. If you want to read what it really is, then the ruling is open to reading by everyone on the planet.

FT2 (Talk | email) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

Regarding Shutterbug's comments:

I did not follow the ArbCom much in the past weeks so I learned about your decision from the media... BTW, I also checked with several staff that would know if anyone from the ArbCom, Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had contacted the Church in the course of this whole procedure. Negative, no communication at all. So the Arbcom did an "arbitration" without even inviting the participation of those who are effected by its decision.

It's particularly odd to see this complaint coming from Shutterbug. Contrast it to Shutterbug's declaration on 9 December 2007 at RFAR:

I am not going to leave voluntarily and I will continue to use a) my own computer, b) public computers, c) my wireless laptop, d) computers in the Church of Scientology and any station I please.[17]

An analysis of that statement, juxtaposed against prior news coverage from 2007, has been in my evidence since December 2008.[18] Additionally, it was Shutterbug (formerly User:COFS) who was the principal subject of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS first filed in April 2007, and later the arbitration case of the same name: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS.

Evidently, for over two years this person has not held him- or herself accountable either for having failed to abide by Wikipedia's policies or for having failed to inform the organization whose reputation s/he was endangering. Over two years ago I attempted to explain to this person that Wikipedia's open edit and public history structure meant s/he was risking a much bigger public relations problem than the legitimate problem s/he was trying to fix. That caution, and remedial suggestions which followed, were met with open contempt. That reaction continued even after events proved empirically that those cautions were correct. It can hardly come as much surprise, that more than a year and a half after the Arbitration Committee passed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations, the capabilities it outlined have finally been implemented:

Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.
Passed 10 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget for a moment what organization this is: if it were a county government, or a sporting goods manufacturer, or anything else, this individual's Internet access privileges would long since have been curtailed on the organizational side. Wikipedians are volunteers who can (and have) blocked editing access from any organization up to and including the United States House of Representatives.[19][20] It is entirely incidental that in this instance the organization happens to be a religion. It certainly is regrettable that things have had to go so far, and as a gesture of good faith I repeat my standing offer to nominate any Scientologist's biography for deletion upon request, if it meets the dead trees standard.[21] If Shutterbug and the Church of Scientology are willing to assume their share of responsibility for the events that led to this impasse, and if they take good faith measures toward correcting the problems that led here, then I would gladly initiate a motion to modify and/or lift the restriction. DurovaCharge! 01:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As you're topic-banned, isn't this moot?  Roger Davies talk 09:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, Shutterbug, since you are topic banned this is beside the point for you. To the more general question, in order to edit the Scientology topic from internet access provided by the CofS, users are instructed to have one account that they use for all their editing on the topic (preferably this would be their one main account for all Wikipedia article editing on all topics), notify the Arbitration Committee so an IP block exemption can be given, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration. The exact ip address/ranges (given to the CofS by an internet provider) are not important for these editors to know because they may or may not change over time. The important aspect of the situation is for them to notify the Committee of their intent to edit from internet access provided by CofS so that they can get an IP block exemption. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to expound on the technical details of the implementation of this remedy. If an editor edits from CoS premises, it suffices to know that the IP addresses from which they edit may (and indeed, should) have been blocked and that an IP Block exemption will be required. There is no need to inquire preemptively since IPBE is explicitly granted on a strictly needed basis. — Coren (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=293819578"