Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Terryeo banned from Scientology related articles

1) Due to continued disruption Terryeo is banned from editing articles related to Dianetics or Scientology pending resolution of this request.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not prohibits use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks prohibits personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] NPOV

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject. The practice of first setting forth the positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit warring

4) Edit warring is harmful. Content disputes should be resolved by recourse to verifiable sources and discussion, not repeated reverts of an article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tendentious editing

5) Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Talk pages

6) Wikipedia talk pages offer the opportunity for dialog. Removal of discussion by others hinders that necessary process.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute involves edits by Terryeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to Dianetics, Scientology, and related articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks by Terryeo

2) Terryeo has made personal attacks [1], [2].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Terryeo's interpretation of NPOV

3) Terryeo's interpretation of NPOV, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#First assertion: Editors understand the stated word differently contains elements of the sympathetic point of view approach which has been considered and rejected by Wikipedia policy makers.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Xenu.net

4) Xenu.net (Operation Clambake) is not a personal website in the sense that it represents only the opinion of one person. It is a prominent website critical of Scientology, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#xenu.net content.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I disagree, JayJG; I think that it's pretty clearly used as a prominent reference.
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Operation Clambake is clearly a personal website. It's operated and owned by one individual, and the majority of the material on it is written by that individual (though he does include articles written by others). The author writes about the site in the first person (see http://www.xenu.net/cb-faq.html), and notes that he personally covers all its costs ("I personally cover all the costs to keep Operation Clambake on the Internet.") Little is known about him besides his website, which apparently is his sole claim to fame (see Andreas Heldal-Lund, which has no personal or biographical information about him at all, and has only 3 references, 2 of which are from his own website). Yes, he's spent a lot of time investigating Scientology, but that still doesn't make his website anything more than a personal endeavor. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg has persuaded me ➥the Epopt 19:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't particularly feel like making a determination of this sort through arbitration. Too much of an editorial issue. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring by Terryeo

5) Terryeo has engaged in edit warring of Scientology related articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Edit warring.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Terryeo has removed references

6) Terryeo has repeatedly removed references to sources, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Removal of references for POV reasons and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#First assertion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Terryeo has removed others' postings to talk pages

7) Terryeo has removed material posted by others to talk pages, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Inappropriate removal of content from talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Terryeo placed on personal attack parole

1) Terryeo is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be blocked briefly if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Terreo banned from Scientology related articles

2) Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Terryeo placed on Probation

3) Terryeo is placed on Probation indefinitely. He may be banned from any article, talk or policy page which he disrupts. Bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Terryeo placed on general probation

4) Terryeo is placed on general probation indefinitely. For good cause, any three administrators may ban Terryeo from Wikipedia. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The case is related to Scientology. Over and above that, I weakly supported the Probation, but this is too much. Evidence does not support the need for this in conjunction with the topical ban. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure that this is necessary in this case.
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Bans may be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Charles Matthews 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

  1. All the motions that are going to pass have passed. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close ➥the Epopt 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Charles Matthews 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)