Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:49, 4 July 2016 view sourceRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,110 edits →Statement by {Non-party}: not again - statement by Robert McClenon← Previous edit Revision as of 20:06, 4 July 2016 view source L235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,344 edits →Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: removed per arb directionNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}

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

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

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
*] on whether the is a ] to support extraordinary criminal allegations.
*] on copyright violations of (1) an image used in the article and (2) a link to a page hosting an unlicensed copyright recording.
*]. Admin decided image is in violation and deleted it. The file had been uploaded and linked by Feoffer .
*]. I reopened to get definitive answer on ]. Instead of an answer on copyright, I was threatened with being blocked.
*]. I reopened a second time to get definitive answer on WP:ELNEVER. It was answered and I closed the question.
*]. I asked for enforcement of the Scientology 2009 provisions on Prioryman.
*]. A week later, Prioryman retaliated with a counter-request for sanctions against me.
*]. I appealed the 12-month topic ban sanction.

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

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

Conspiracy to murder and threat to murder are criminal accusations. All these allegations are highly infamous and need reliable sources, but these are the weakest. The article violates ]: "Any exceptional claim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources." But as one TEAM member Thimbleweed admitted: ''The problem here is that '''there aren't any proper secondary sources''', we'll have to make do with what we have.'' None of the other TEAM members objected to that assessment.

Yet the TEAM has repeatedly agreed on the talk page that the article is in tip-top shape,
and two members of the TEAM have nominated it for GA.,

In AE, '''The Wordsmith''' deprecated Prioryman's editing violations: "The sources are an editorial matter, not a disciplinary one."] But under Arbcom ], editorial and content violations are sanctionable. There is real factor of ]. The accusation reaches into present time because Hubbard's words are dogma for the church. The Church leaders, now and in the past, are alive and known by name. Every person who identifies as a Scientologist from ] to John Doe is accused of being in a murder-suicide cult.

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

I am topic banned for a year (as of June 1) for opposing the TEAM. '''The Wordsmith''' presided over the AE, which was wrong:
# '''The Wordsmith''' has a private collection of Scientology literature and knows more about the cult than "most Scientologists" -- i.e., possible ] (cultist or ex-cultist)
# After filing the AE, complainant Prioryman canvassed '''The Wordsmith''' to preside over the proceeding.
# '''The Wordsmith''' banned me as an SPA,] which proved false in the appeal.
# '''The Wordsmith''' announced that secret information justified the banning, convincing others to affirm the sanction, but later admitted the secret information was untrue.

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

'''NB The Process:''' The sanction "was, in fact, suggested by an Arbitrator I consulted for advice". That Arbitrator should be identified and recused.
:*The topic ban did not (and probably could not) forbid Arbitration, given that this is the last court of appeal. ] ] 15:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
:*Prioryman is the same ChrisO, an admin sanctioned during the original Scientology ] and partially pardoned in 2012.] ] ] 15:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Wordsmith ===

=== Statement by Prioryman ===

I think the arbitrators need to determine whether this request is a violation of Sfarney's current . The issue has been in an appeal by Sfarney at ANI, which upheld the sanction. This seems to be yet another attempt to relitigate it. ] (]) 10:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

=== Statement by Cavarrone ===
As noted above, Sfarney is apparently violating is topic-ban. Also, his complaints were already discussed enough, particularly in his ], which ended confirming his topic ban. There are no new elements, and therefore there is no need for a replay. --] 10:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

=== Statement by uninvolved Jbhunley ===
{{u|Sfarney}} is subject to a Scientology topic ban <blockquote> You are prohibited from (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Misplaced Pages process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth, for a period of one year. </blockquote> and this request is a violation of it. Per ] the only thing he may bring before ARBCOM is an ''appeal of the topic ban'' which he has done at AN resulting in community confirmation of the ban as noted in the diff above. I strongly feel that Sfarney needs a long block <small>(I'd say 4-6 weeks since this has been a long standing issue which has already taken up a lot of community time, they show no sign of letting go and a short block would not serve as a deterrent.)</small> for disruptive editing and violation of an editing sanction to get it through to them to ]. ]] 15:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Apart from that interest, I have no skin in this game. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

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

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

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

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

Revision as of 20:06, 4 July 2016

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.