Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.|Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.]]		15 May 2016	{{{votes}}}
Scientology editing is polemical, not encyclopedic		19 May 2016	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.

Initiated by Picomtn (talk) at 20:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Picomtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification David Gerard]DiffDiff
• [diff of notification Jytdog]Diff
• Note I am so sorry, but I'm unable (age/eyesight/slight dementia) to fully understand what diffs are or how they are used (and @Checkingfax: can tell you I've honestly been trying to learn), but I have notified all of the parties involved from my talk page as evidenced here. Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This articles talk page contains evidence of dispute resolution attempts, but has been eliminated. (see statement)

Statement by Picomtn

This is an article (Sorcha Faal) that in 2012 a no consensus AfD was reached for this articles subject, and was followed a year later, in 2013, with a successful deletion effort led by WP editor David Gerard who, also, then substantially editedan article about this articles subject on the RationalWiki "snarky point of view" website.

From February 17, 2016 to May 11, 2016, this article was recreated and substantially worked on by at least 12 editors and its name was changed from "Sorcha Faal" to "Sorcha Faal reports" by a consensus opinion of same. On March 29th, Edward321 requested a G4 speedy deletion of this article, which was denied by administrator JzG on March 30th with his stating "Not a G4 repost, content is significantly different."

From March 30th to May 10th, this article continued to be worked on and on that date had reached the size of 24,731 bytes with various important issues relating to it still being discussed on both the talk page and noticeboard.

On May 11th, editors David Gerard, Fyddlestix, Jytdog and WP Arbitration Committe administrator Doug Weller (none of whom had previously contributed to the editing of this article) asserted an immediate WP consensus over this article and from that date to May 15th deleted from it 20,224 bytes of content and sourcesDiff, changed this articles name (thus removing the previous articles viewing history), and editor Jytdog "manually moved" 90% of the talk page to archive failing to follow WP talk page archiving guidelines. (see correct WP example here of how talk pages that have content archived are to be noted)

This request is being asked to resolve the issue of if this article (in its previous "Sorcha Faal reports" state/not current one) falls under both WP:BLP and WP:Lists (and if lists restore its original article name), an order that the location of the "manually archived" talk page be posted, and all editors be notified that WP:consensus policy must be followed and that all edits should be documenented on the talk page citing exact WP policies and guidelines that are being adhered to.

References

• Question Due to my age (very senior citizen) and disabilities (eyesight/slight dementia/heart) am I able to have someone more experienced in this process appointed to help me please? Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This request is being made under the Wikipedia Foundation Non discrimination policy.[1] Picomtn (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller says in his arbitration statement here on this page "If this is a BLP article", but immediatly prior to the gutting of this stable article said "I agree entirely. BLP applies"Permalink thus proving his knowledge that BLP Discretionary Sanctions applied. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

Picomtn believes that me having previously nominated Sorcha Faal for deletion on Wikipedia, but writing about them elsewhere with completely unrelated content rules, constitutes a conflict of interest. See 2, in which he also asserts "an apparent bias, and conflict of interest, being evidenced by editor Gerard towards anti-war, anti-government conspiracy type writers" and claims that Jytdog and I are the same person. (He also claims that I may be an NSA sockpuppet, which I am at a loss as to how to usefully respond to.)

This was all in the cause of bringing back the deleted Sorcha Faal article, per Talk:Sorcha_Faal/Archive_1 (notes from the article being in draft space).

On the BLP question, I concur with the approximate consensus at BLPN - I don't know that "Sorcha Faal" is one person, but I have treated the article as a likely BLP because it's safer than not doing so. This implies the need for stringent BLP-quality sourcing.

In the present dispute, Fyddlestix went through the article and did a thorough BLP-quality check on every source and claim, making a series of edits removing dubious material: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

I went through that series of edits (and you should too), reviewing each one: each has its purpose, and usually relevant guidelines, clearly stated in the summary. Many of the sources were very low-quality, and even the good ones were summarised very badly or misleadingly. That chain of edits was IMO a thorough, correct and commendable action on a very badly sourced BLP.

Checkingfax and Picomtn attempted to edit-war back this material that had been removed for being completely unsuitable for a BLP, claiming "consensus" because the bad material had not been removed previously. Checkingfax's claims on this page that BLP status holds argues against their actions in putting the dubious material back.

This is a content dispute that is still at the talk-page state of resolution.

Picomtn is an editor who does not appear to understand how to work productively at Wikipedia, despite much effort by several people. Checkingfax I would urge to default to greater caution with likely BLPs. - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog

Oh my. So premature. Arbcom is for situations where there is intractable disruption that the community has not been able to manage through normal means, including implementing DS that apply to this topic. This is not even close. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax there is no evidence that an actual person named "Sorcha Faal" exists and this is not a BLP matter. I had seen that there is a DS/alert on the talk page; I just noticed that it is a BLP DS notice that you placed on the Talk page here on 3 April 2016. That was not appropriate in my view. The relevant DS are PSCI, what with the claims of conspiracy theories about aliens and whatnot that the site makes, as mentioned in the third paragraph of Sorcha Faal. I had thought until now that the DS notice was for PSCI. If Arbcom declines we should bring this to Clarifications to get a read on what if any DS this article should fall under, if that isn't resolved while the case is being considered. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13

@Picomtn: Can you provide diffs for the claims you've made? Also, can you elaborate on why Jytdog's archiving was problematic? clpo13_(talk) 20:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Picomtn: Can you also explain this comment? An "us vs. them" mentality is never a good thing to have on Wikipedia. clpo13_(talk) 20:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with what Jytdog says about this being premature. WP:DR lists many alternatives to try before arbitration. clpo13_(talk) 20:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there is an archive link on Talk:Sorcha Faal; it's included in {{talk header}}. clpo13_(talk) 22:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by more or less uninvolved Dennis Brown

This is really about content, thus outside the purview of Arb. No behavior has risen to the level of an Arb case, and other solutions have not been exhausted. It is my opinion it should be declined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• As to whether or not this article falls under BLP, I have serious questions about that. Since it could be any number of people, even a rotating staff that uses that single pseudonym, and it is not connected to any real life person, it is my opinion that it is not covered under BLP and thus not subject to discretionary sanctions. I think shielding this article under the umbrella of BLP is an administrative mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have filed a request for consensus at WP:AN to determine if this article qualifies for BLP protection. I think that the community (and admin in particular since they are the ones that enforce and are supposed to know this stuff) should opine. I don't see how this consensus will change anything with this case request, but in the interest of full disclosure wanted to make note of it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

Picomtn's comments at User talk:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/sf give some context to this. I've tried to help this editor in various ways both on my talk page and hers.[19] I've been involved with the article since April 8th, not May 11th.[20][21] Comments on the Sorchs Fall talk page such as "Here are some of my final thoughts about this, and everyone here at WP should be proud today for the fine work you, and these other editors, are doing to help these people[22], who, like you, are working hard everyday to keep us all safe from the bad things we shouldn't know about. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)" aren't encouraging. Doug Weller talk 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• If this is a BLP article and thus sanctions are relevant, I want to point out that the article was replete with unreliable sources, obvious misrepresentation of sources both reliable and unreliable, and original research. Several editoss can attest to that. That being the case, it appears to me that restoring such material en masse rather that gradually by discussion was unsafe. Doug Weller talk 04:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's look at the "at least 12 editors" There's you and Checkingfax, although you added the almost all the content. There's me on April 8th (well before March 11th). Then there's User:Somedifferentstuff who removed some sources, at least one for not being an RS, others with the edit summary " REMOVED SOURCES; it is a clear violation of WP:OR to use sources that make no mention of Sorcha Faal". Later User:Jzg removed a lot of material, over 11,000 bytes, on the grounds that it was original research and/or synthesis. 10 days later Jzg again removed material as not having a reliable source, OR, not relevant, not mentioning Faal, etc. The next day User:Amatulic "fixed misquotation and misattribution, removed some unsubstantiated peacock terms about sources". Then User:Edward321 adds a speedy delete tag. Amatulic comes along again to remove some OR. User:ThePlatypusofDoom does a small edit saying "fringe cleanup". A WP:SPA, User:Sstorch, adds a personal comment. And User:Natalie.Desautels does some cleanup including removing a paragraph that was a duplicate of an earlier paragraph (which had a source that didn't mention Faal). Doug Weller talk 12:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Picomtn: - Do you still stand by your statements here[23], eg that governments and intelligence services are funding Wikipedia, and that "if you stray too far out of bounds towards real truth and facts (this scares them you know) you'll find yourself exiled."? And that nearly all editors here are " zealots, partisans, and extremists from all parts of the spectrum"? Doug Weller talk 13:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Checkingfax

This situation is under BLP Discretionary Sanctions and is therefore exempt to other preliminary means of resolution.

Additionally, complainant, Picomtn has already taken this issue to any possible preliminary noticeboards.

Discretionary sanctions alert: topic=blp: Fyddlestix David Gerard

Diff showing last 1000 edits going back to starting of Draft.

Editor Fyddlestix and others reverted article gutting edits after being apprised of Discretionary Sanctions, and after being issued unconstructive edit warnings.

David Gerard

Fyddlestix

Diffs showing editor/admin Guy posting edit summaries that violate BLP guidelines and BLP discretionary sanctions. Admins are expected to know not to do that: "Rabbit hole, nonsense on nonsense, minor nutter, conspiritards, conspiracy loons". [24][25][26][27][28]

Permalink showing editor/admin/arbitrator Doug Weller asking BLP noticeboard if Sorcha Faal reports was a BLP or not. Also, shows that editor Fyddlestix did not participate in the discussion, but instead used the posting as an alert to go over and clandestinely slash the Sorcha Faal reports article.

Permalink showing that editor Natalie.Desautels was poised to make substantial productive copy-edits about the same time.

Permalink of talk page and link to talk page archive showing that editor Fyddlestix never sought consensus to gut the article.

Permalink shows editor David Gerard putting a proposed deletion tag on the original Sorcha Faal article 6:06 am, 30 March 2013

Diff showing that editor Only in death changed article name back to Sorcha Faal with zero consensus. Article name Sorcha Faal was the original name but it was changed to Sorcha Faal reports per suggestion of editor/admin Amatulic and consensus discussion of editors Checkingfax, Guy, and Picomtn.

Permalink showing substantial talk page consensus getting the Sorcha Faal article to its stable 25K version (including references) up to May 11, 2016 (the point at which editor Fyddlestix made an 80% reduction through two hours of continuous bold non-consensus editing).

The 25K version had received consensus via talk page consensus and via edit consensus per WP:Consensus guidelines, and was stable.

Editor MjolnirPants reverted helpful edits performed by Checkingfax without providing an edit summary, nor without gaining consensus, or offering a talk page explanation.

Permalink showing editor Jytdog without consensus, archived 60 days of consensus talk page discussion 30 days before any dormant threads would have been auto-archived anyway. Respectfully submitted, {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fyddlestix

Nothing here comes close to requiring Arbcom's attention - it's a content dispute. Picomtn (and Checkingfax), object to a series of edits I made to Sorcha Faal reports, which I came to via this posting at BLPN. I believe these edits were constructive and policy-compliant, certainly they made in good faith. The article previously was rife with POV wording and content, had content that failed verification, and relied on many poor-quality or unreliable sources. I don't believe that prior consensus is or was required to perform a cleanup on an article that was in that much of a mess.

My edits started here: note that I explained each of them in the summary, and posted explanations to both BLPN and the article talk page once I'd completed the cleanup. These were BOLD edits - I was fully prepared to have them reverted and to seek a broader consensus for them, fortunately this proved easy as the edits garnered support from numerous other users (including 2 administrators), and were opposed only by Picomtn and Checkingfax.

Picomtn seems to not understand how wikipedia works very well - but I am surprised that Checkingfax (an experienced editor who I know does great work elsewhere) chose to fight my revisions with such intensity. From where I stand it's obvious that the old version of the page was unacceptable, and incompatible with key policies like NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. And I was particularly troubled by their use of a DS notice to express opposition to my edits and (I guess?) try to spook me out of defending them. I think that was inappropriate, especially since I believe my edits removed several BLP violations.

As far as the BLP question, what some of those commenting may not know is that both the website whatdoesitmean.com and the pseudonym Sorcha Faal are associated with a name in multiple places on the web (eg, snopes, rational wiki), which is at least potentially a real individual's name. That info's not in the article because it can't be reliably sourced - but in my opinion that does suggest that BLP should apply. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death

I became aware of the article due to the BLP noticeboard notification. (to address Dennis) 'Sorcha Faal' is a living person using a pen name. That we dont know their actual name is irrelevant. All the reliable sources available refer to them as one person, not a group. Probably because people channelling that much conspiracy nonsense rarely work well with others. Now the article at 'Sorcha Faal' prior to its rename to Sorcha Faal reports would be a BLP. The article after the rename (due to the substantial material on the 'person') would also be covered by the BLP policy even if at that time it was not primarily a biography due to the inclusion of all the report info. The problem with it under 'Sorcha Faal reports' was that it lacked scope. It wanted to not be a biography so it could include lots of unreliable sources for material. Once that material was removed (and most of it was badly sourced) it was no longer primarily about the reports - which with a few exceptions are non-notable lunacy - and the only real reliable sourcing was regarding the identity and impact of the person known as Sorcha Faal - hence the rename back. As it stands due to the impact of some of the reports, Sorcha Faal as a conspiracy theorist is notable. The vast majority of their reports are not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by ThePlatypusofDoom

I was slightly involved in this case. I was notified at the fringe noticeboard. I really wasn't involved in the discussion, but from a purely WP:FRINGE point of view, this page should be protected. It is a magnet for conspiracy theorists, and the people involved at the fringe noticeboard don't want to clean this up again and again. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, checkingfax isn't helping anything by accusing MjolnirPants, who I have worked with at the fringe noticeboard and is clearly helping the article. I agree with MjolnirPants. Just semi-protect it and decline this content dispute. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

Checkingfax's statement is highly misleading.

• His claim that the name was changes with zero consensus is false: in fact, only in death moved it at the suggestion of another editor and with the support of others. Furthermore, Checkingfax's assertion of a lack of consensus only works if consensus is a unanimous vote. The majority of users participating in the discussion about the move agreed that it should be changed, and provided good reasons why. Two editors said that it should not be moved, but gave no policy or logical reasons as to why. The evidence of this is right there on the talk page.
• His claim that I reverted helpful edits by him (referring to himself in the third person, which has become a red flag for me) without an edit summary is proven false by his own diff. The edit summary was "See talk" where I had posted a longer-than-an-edit-summary rationale for my edit. His assertion that I had not gained consensus once again relies upon the assumtion that consensus is a unanimous vote: In fact, I did so under the same rationale as 2-3 other users, against no policy or logical arguments, and with the (apparent after-the-fact) tacit support from Checkingfax himself (who had been apparently happy to edit the version of the article I supported). In truth, I reverted his edits mistakenly, as I have explicitly explained to him already. I had intended to restore the shorter version of the article, and was under the mistaken impression that this was not the current version of the article. It was. When Fyddlestix saw my edit, he advised me that I had undone useful edits by Checkingfax. I acknowledged this and agreed that they were good edits. Fyddlestix then reverted my edit, which I tacitly supported. Checkingfax then asked me to revert, and I explained that this was already done. When he asked me another question, I realized my mistake (note that the mistake had been fully corrected by this point) and politely explained myself to him. Apparently, he has not bothered to read that before jumping the gun (and the shark, as far as the DS issues go IMHO) by coming here.

I cannot speak to the rest of his claims, beyond pointing out that the editors he claims were warned of the DS's are all more experienced and active editors who have spent more time dealing with DS articles than Checkingfax. Furthermore, Picomtn has a history of conspiracy-minded venting on and about WP, which sets off a whole series of red flags. They've already been addressed above, so I won't harp on them beyond saying that I've found his behavior to be remarkably non-helpful in almost every way; he does not discuss, but simply dictates what he wants, he gets sarcastic when he doesn't get his way, he rants to those whom he thinks will listen to him, and he holds the subject of this article in a much greater esteem than can be explained rationally. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

This does seem to me to be jumping the gun at least a little. So far as I can tell, there are still some questions whether the real person or people who have used this name still qualify as living, and/or whether any content on the page might damage that person or persons. Under the circumstances, as I said elsewhere, I think it would be more in the interests of any people who think they might be harmed by this to contact WP:OTRS, give the person there information on how this might require attention, and have it resolved in that way. But I don't think that we can really know which policies or guidelines might apply if we know as little about the theoretically living people as we do here. I suppose, at least theoretically, this might maybe extend to the possibility of treating every editor on wikipedia as being under the same policy, and I rather doubt that this would be the place to do that. The relevant policy page would probably be a better place for such a discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by

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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Decline as premature. The presence of discretionary sanctions is not a reason to bypass all other forms of dispute resolution; if someone is engaging in disruptive conduct, then they can be reported to arbitration enforcement, but everyone involved is otherwise expected to follow the normal process for resolving content disputes. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per Kirill. @Picomtn: I understand that you're relatively inexperienced and feeling a little ganged-up-on, but you'll have a much easier time here if you take on board the feedback you're getting from other editors here about your approach to editing and especially sourcing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per Kirill, in the hopes this can be resolved far more easily somewhere else. Courcelles (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. Agreed that this is premature. To User:Checkingfax in particular: I'm not sure if by This situation is under BLP Discretionary Sanctions and is therefore exempt to other preliminary means of resolution. you mean that this is exempt from other dispute resolution because it is a BLP, or because it is under discretionary sanctions. As my colleagues mentioned above, articles under discretionary sanctions can still be handled in normal dispute resolution venues (typically WP:AE). I do somewhat understand the reluctance to take BLP issues to public community dispute resolution, but unless they involve private information, or information that otherwise should not be discussed publicly on Wikipedia, BLPs can still be handled by the community. I'm hoping that the community's processes will be sufficient for this issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Scientology editing is polemical, not encyclopedic

Initiated by Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk at 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#R2-45_case
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#R2-45_copyright_policy_violations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_206#Tonyortega.org

Statement by Sfarney

Scientology is a controversial subject, and has sparked a broad array of opinions. NPOV requires care and discretion by editors to avoid fringe opinions, weak sources, questionable sources, and non-standard editing. Editors should find the middle way with scholarly consensus, which these articles currently do not. Wikipedia should not become an advocate for or against a controversial subject. But some of these articles are polemical, not encyclopedic. R2-45 contains wild derogatory claims supported only by flimsy evidence, rather than the consensus of scholarly opinion as an encyclopedia should.

The topic R2-45, in paragraph 3, asserts that L. Ron Hubbard advocated shooting people and told ministers to counsel believers to commit suicide. The sources cited are of three types (and only those), putting that text squarely into WP:REDFLAG:

1. WP:cherrypicking words from (alleged) original source,
2. paraphrasing (alleged) original source with cherrypicking and WP:SYNTH, and
3. a page on Wikileaks, which is an anonymous crowd source no better than Usenet or Facebook and does not satisfy WP:RS.

R2-45 asserts that Scientology uses "R2-45" as a murder threat. That accusation of criminal conspiracy against the identifiable living persons (Scientology executives) puts it in the realm of WP:BLP, who, according to L. Ron Hubbard, accept Hubbard's writings as Church doctrine. This claim is supported only by the website Tonyortega.org, a self published blog with no editorial oversight or peer review.

R2-45 asserts that Hubbard issued death warrants on a number of people. The allegation is a WP:FRINGE opinion not supported by scholarly sources, but by original sources and one antagonistic writer. The original sources are unavailable historical magazines, and cannot be verified.

Threats and orders to kill would be indictable criminal conduct, but no criminal justice service has ever charged the Church for those actions, suggesting the claims are baseless.

I have attempted to edit the page, but the four WP:OWNing editors (Slashme, Damotclese, Feoffer, Prioryman) revert the edits.[29][30][31] I have brought the concerns to their attention on the talk page with no results.[32][33][34][35][36] Despite their arguments about consensus,[37] I do not believe that a local gang can out-vote Wikipedia policy. My reference to these editors as "owners" is the position they take to edits by outsiders. Those four edit the article directly. When others such as myself edit the article, they revert and instruct us to get consensus on the edit from the other editors before making the change.[38]

I indicated that the article violates WP:REFLAG, but the editors do not respond.[39][40] Prioryman has indicated s/he is aware of the discretionary sanctions on Scientology. The same allegations have been copied to Scientology controversies by Foeffer.

On April 17, Prioryman added a statement that Hubbard was a "malignant narcissist," sourced to a self-published document by a sociology professor who never met or examined Hubbard.[41]

On May 1, Feoffer removed a bunch of maintenance tags when a copyright question to ANI was answered[42]. The tags had nothing to do with copyright.[43]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The filing party recently filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard concerning the R2-45 article, which has to do with Scientology. There were two problems with that filing. The first was a substantive problem. The filing party was claiming conduct issues, especially article ownership, and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) is for the resolution of content disputes, not conduct disputes. The second was a procedural problem, that the filing party added the case manually to the project page of the noticeboard. The case docket of DRN is maintained by a bot, and filing is supposed to be done using a template that is consistent with the input expected by the bot. Past experience has been that manual filings break the bot. I had to delete the manual filing so that it didn't break the bot. I then advised the filing party that Scientology is already subject to discretionary sanctions, and advised the filing party that conduct issues should be reported to Arbitration Enforcement. The filing party hasn't shown why Arbitration Enforcement can't handle the dispute or why ArbCom needs to rehear or modify the case. Maybe the filing party doesn't understand the difference between Arbitration Enforcement and a new arbitration case, and needs to have the difference explained. In any case, ArbCom does not need to open a case because a previous case has authorized Arbitration Enforcement, and ArbCom can decline this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 20 May 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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Scientology editing is polemical, not encyclopedic: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)