Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 13:33, 26 May 2016 (→Result concerning Prioryman: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Tanbircdq

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Tanbircdq

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AnotherNewAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tanbircdq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Neutrality and sources
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Sockpuppetry
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Tendentious editing
• WP:NEWBLPBAN - BLP violations

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

• 16:50, 20 April 2016 Tanbircdq's IP sock reinserts problematic POV material originally added by Tanbircdq that had been rejected by other editors.
• 17:31, 21 April 2016 IP sock attempts to canvas on the talk page of a totally unrelated article watched by significant numbers of editors known to sympathize with his agenda.
• 17:31, 22 April 2016 IP sock accuses Number 57 of being a "supporter, PR rep or paid Hasbara" .
• Second IP sock canvasses a bunch of editors considered sympathetic to his agenda.
• 08:34, 25 April 2016 IP sock pings various editors considered sympathetic to his agenda.
• General obstinate talk page attitude, and accusations of bad faith, censorship, etc.
• 21:00, 28 April 2016 Accuses other editors of being "acolytes" of the subject. Is otherwise obstinate and rude.
• 17:41, 29 April 2016 IP sock adds clear BLP-violating material: three misleadingly out-of-context quotes about relations with the Palestinian Authority, the subject's opinions about a Palestinian state, and a Knesset bill he intended to introduce. In the same edit, added a libelous mis-quote which implied very strongly that the subject advocated "targeted killings" of anti-Israel political activists. Sources provided are a piece by anti-Israel blogger Richard Silverstein, a piece by anti-Israel activist Omar Barghouti, and a news article by the reliable Ynetnews news site - from which it was very clear the subject advocated no such thing!
• 15:54, 30 April 2016 IP sock reinserted BLP-violating negative material previously added by Tanbircdq that was poorly sourced and had been rejected by other editors. A potentially libelous quote about deterrence is sourced to a Huffington Post clickbait piece; further potentially libelous material about bombing Gaza is sourced to the far-left Green Left Weekly publication and a less-than-temperate "analysis" piece from al-Arabiya.
• 11:21, 1 May 2016 Edit-warring. This is good overview of the sum total of material added so far - all of it negative. IP sock subsequently files an edit-warring complaint and is blocked himself!
• 15:30, 2 May 2016 In the edit-warring complaint, IP sock again pings multiple editors considered sympathetic to his agenda.
• 17:24, 8 May 2016 IP sock disrupts Misplaced Pages to make a point by removing unfavorable material from the article of the British Labour Party politician Naz Shah, per his rebuffing on Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1955).
• 17:28, 11 May 2016 Tanbircdq returns with his main account some days after the article was long-term protected from his IP socking, and defends the problematic material per WP:NOTCENSORED. Accuses other editors of WP:DONTLIKEIT. "As a compromise," he essentially suggests that he should continue adding the negative material, and it's up to other editors the article to fill the article with neutral material to balance it out.
• 15:35, 14 May 2016 Tanbircdq commences an RfC on the inclusion of the problematic material. The question is framed to be about negative material on BLPs in general, rather than this specific material on this specific article, which is clearly what the other editors were objecting to. Furthermore, there is an attempt to prejudice the outcome of the RfC by again using WP:NOTCENSORED to justify the retention of BLP-violating material - and again on the BLP noticeboard.
• 14:13, 15 May 2016 Tanbircdq reinserts the problematic material in its entirety - in the middle of the RfC - as if nothing was wrong, expanded with additional material suggested on the talk page by one of the canvassed editors.
• 18:15, 17 May 2016 Tanbircdq performed this exceptionally sneaky edit where he moved my content about the subject's Knesset bill into a different section in the article whilst changing the source from the more comprehensive Likud minister submits bill to deport terrorists’ families article, to his preferred Minister Yisrael Katz welcomes effort to expel terrorists’ families article, hoping that nobody would notice.
• 21:08, 19 May 2016 The above source manipulation enabled him to later justify this edit, where he dispenses with the material entirely in favor of his preferred implicating quote version - or as his misleading edit summary puts it, "copy-edit content according to the source".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Here and here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tanbircdq added a slew of negative material to Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1955) in November/December 2015, and edit-warred over its inclusion with other editors. The material consisted of a series of cherrypicked quotes that depicted the subject of the article in an unfairly and unduly bad light, in violation of WP:BLP. Some of this material was potentially libelous and was sourced to weak or partisan sources. The matter was referred to ANI by Number 57 but the complaint lapsed and was archived without sanction.

Some months later, Tanbircdq returned with an IP sock and attempted to reinsert the rejected material (). This was clearly a band hand sock as his conduct on the talkpage was uncooperative, rude and obstinate. He added out-of-context and cherrypicked quotes that did not communicate a fair or accurate assessment of the subject's views as a whole. He also added patently libelous material that falsely suggested that the subject of the article advocated murdering members of an anti-Israel political movement (). He edit-warred over the above and was briefly blocked. Most of the actionable conduct relates to Tanbircdq's actions whilst editing as this IP.

A second IP sock canvassed various editors considered to be sympathetic to Tanbircdq's agenda.

After the article was semi-protected, Tanbircdq returned some days later under his main account. His conduct on the talk page can be summed up as "I didn't hear that". He suggested it was up to other editors to add balancing material to offset his negative.() He began a biased RfC in an attempt badger consensus, reinserted the problematic material before the RfC was complete, and added further negative material of dubious source quality. In the "final straw" he sneakily manipulated a source () in order to justify the restoration of a preferred quote. ()

Taken as a whole his editing is a long charade of sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, disruptive editing and "I didn't hear that" involving severe BLP violations. I can only suggest an indef topic ban from ARBPIA articles and BLPs on politicians and political activists.

Note: there is a currently open Sockpuppet investigation against Tanbircdq relating to the sockpuppetry above. I am very confident that the IPs in question are Tanbircdq, and the evidence I have for this is extremely strong. Unfortunately, WP:SPI is backlogged with caseload and it's taking a while for SPIs to be completed. I'm asking for the above conduct to be considered while the SPI takes place.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Tanbircdq

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Tanbircdq

Statement by Kingsindian

I will concentrate on the content issue; I have no comment on the sockpuppetry (I was canvassed by one of the IPs but I told them I had no interest in the article)

The root issue is whether the negative material (some of it well-sourced, some not) was WP:UNDUE or not. That is not a matter for WP:AE but the talk page.

The RfC was too vague: the question asked was almost a tautology, so the result was almost unanimous. Tanbirdq was a bit hasty in adding material while the RfC was going on; they should have waited a while.

Regarding the "sneaky" source change, I fail to find any substantive difference between the two sources. Both are from the same newspaper. The main point is that Katz introduced a bill to deport families of terrorists. One source talks about Katz's public statement before introduction of the bill - where he notes the Prime Minister's support. The other source is one week later, when he actually introduced the bill - which also notes the Prime Minister's support who referred it to the Attorney General to check its legality. I also don't see anything wrong with moving the bill to the "Political Career" section from the "Views" section. People can just move it back if they disagree.

Overall I don't find any misconduct here. I suggest reversion of the article to the state before all this material was added, together with a clear, short, neutral RfC which shows the new version (it could be a WP:DRAFT) and directly asks people whether it is undue or not. Alternatively, WP:DRN could be used. There could be full-protection applied in the meantime, though that is not necessary. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tanbircdq

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Interfase

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Interfase

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

OptimusView (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Interfase reverted (readded) a phrase that previously was deleted by a user
2. without any initial explanations at talk Interfase returns an original and possibly disruptive phrase that few hours ago was added by him

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. "For any reverts you make in mainspace that are not of clear and obvious vandalism (within the definition above), you must go to the article's talk page and give your reasons for your revert before making any further edits anywhere on Misplaced Pages".

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 00:29, 9 March 2014 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While Interfase is under AA2 restrictions, he reverted without any explanations at talk before his revert.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Interfase

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Interfase

1. Actually I didn't make a "revert". The information was removed because of "mistranslated from Russian". I put the text with correct translation that was explained by me in comments. As you can see the text added by me is differ from the text that was removed by anonymous user. I don't see here any violation of sanction. --Interfase (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
2. This situation was already explained by me here, where I noted that these reverts were my mistakes. I already initiated a discussion on a talk one week ago. --Interfase (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EtienneDolet

Interfase is a topic-banned user that has been violating his topic ban for quite some time now. Consistent edit-warring and POV pushing appears to be the theme. He has been edit-warring over several users at Kyaram Sloyan to maintain a POV tag () even when an AfD discussion was ongoing. There's no sense of compromise when it comes to his beliefs. He is the sole user at that article who deems it necessary to have the POV tag placed. Tiptoethrutheminefield's good faith efforts at the article to make it as neutral as possible (going as far as to place the Azerbaijani perspective in the lead) has been subjugated to continued edit-warring and reluctance by Interfase to accept the consensus against him. Some of Interfase's additions are complete unsourced OR POV material and the user even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. These two particular edits () which I came across recently are disruptive and in complete violation of his topic ban. He did not explain this addition on the talk page before making his revert as his topic ban requires. Above all, the claim is completely OR, and is entirely untrue and Interfase even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. The Ter-Tadevosyan quote, for example, is completely cherry-picked and there's absolutely no secondary source that suggests its significance. Interfase went through a YouTube interview of an Armenian general, picked out a quote that suits his POV, concealed contextual information that went against his POV, then added it to the article to prove some sort of WP:POINT (the point being Azeris did better in the war, something he truly believes). His arguments are also unfair. For example, he claims that the bodies of mutilated Armenian soldiers are simply "Armenian side just lies" because there's supposedly no secondary source to back up the claim. But then adds that the Azerbaijani MoD claims to the article which don't have any secondary sources to back their claims either. But when it comes to Azeri claims, it should be considered. When it comes to Armenian claims, they're "just lies" and should be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't say that Armenian claims "should be removed". I said that we shouldn't present them as a fact but as a claims, because its dubious information (as I did with Azerbaijani claims). About claims of Kocharyan (that Azerbaijani president proclaimed Safarov as a hero) I explained on a talk why it is untrue. In NYT nothing about it, btw. --Interfase (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Interfase

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

​​

Prioryman

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Prioryman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Prioryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction to be enforced

1. Purpose of Misplaced Pages
2. Neutrality
3. Quality of sources
4. Neutrality and sources
5. Biographies of living people

Diffs

1. 19:38, 26 April 2016 In this reversion, editor restored text that drew scandalous conclusions of criminal conduct based on cherrypicking, original research, primary source, and self-published blog, in violation of WP:REDFLAG. I drew attention to that exact policy on multiple occasions, but editor refused to discuss text in context of REDFLAG policy.
2. 23:32, 25 April 2016 Editor added original research and cherrypicking from primary source to allege criminal conduct. He also alleged that Hubbard told scientology ministers to advise the believers to commit suicide. I very much doubt that editor purchased the hour-long tape from Scientology and culled quotations from it himself. The allegation is not supported by secondary sources and is REDFLAG.
3. 14:24, 17 April 2016 Editor asserted that Hubbard published a death warrant in a Scientology magazine (which would, of course, be a criminal conspiracy if it had happened). No prosecutor has ever charged Scientology since the date of its alleged publication, and the improbability is strong on this one. The magazine was published in 1968 and there are no publicly accessible reprints, paywall or otherwise, so the statement cannot be verified. The allegation is not supported by secondary sources and is WP:REDFLAG.
4. 14:24, 17 April 2016‎ Editor extracted statements from Stephen A. Kent, a Sociology professor in Alberta without medical qualifications. In that article, Kent provided a highly derogatory medical diagnosis of Hubbard on the basis of anecdotes and 3rd party interviews without meeting or examining Hubbard personally. The article shows no evidence of peer-review, and in particular, no evidence of peer review by qualified psychiatric reviewers. The article was apparently published only in France in a magazine called Criminologie (Criminology). The diagnosis has no consensus among theologians or any other commentators.
5. 05:21, 12 April 2016 The editor restored an unverifiable statement sourced to a 1968 (primary source) publication (to which no one has access) claiming that it contains a death warrant on a list of people. It is not clear that the editor him/herself accessed the original document, and may be working from unverifiable inauthentic sources. The editor also cites to one author who made a similar claim about an earlier publication. Only that one writer has made the claim in the last 50 years -- no other critic or scholar of Scientology has forwarded the claim about any Scientology publication. (WP:FRINGE)
6. (New page) In this page, editor cites and quotes the publishers of the book as a "a riveting insider's look at life within the world of Scientology" and other quotes from the publisher in violation of WP:RS and WP:PROMO.

Previous relevant sanctions : None known

Evidence the editor was warned:

• Editor was warned on May 20, 2016
• Article talk page includes warning in header of discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments

Over the last 6 weeks, the editor works with three others (Slashme, Damotclese, Feoffer) as a tag team to make the articles on Scientology polemical rather than encyclopedic. Working as a team, they synthesize mutual consensus to defeat appeals to Wikipededia principle, policy, and quality.

The article currently accuses Scientology officials of conspiring to threaten murder, publish death warrants, and counsel people to commit suicide. Scientology has been under study by major governments and dozens of theologians and other scholars, none of whom (with the exception of Kent) supports the allegations in this article. The allegations cite to data 50 years old and are obviously untrue because never, in all its history, has Scientology been accused or prosecuted for those crimes by any government. How could the page be so "factual" and yet be so obviously wrong? Just like an erroneous arithmetic problem, the error is in the process. The article has suffered gross deviations from many Misplaced Pages policies on how to write an encyclopedic article, including:

1. WP:REDFLAG: The article is heavily based on (a) primary sources that cannot be verified, (b) a blogger at tonyortega.org who has no editor or peer review, and (c) a Wikileaks page with a few seconds of taped lecture. Two book authors are also cited, but each outrageous claim has no more than once source, having no agreement from other writers, even among the harshest critics.
2. WP:OR: Citation to inaccessible and unvarifiable primary sources
3. Violations of WP:RS, including a Wikileaks page and the blogger at tonyortega.org
4. WP:CHERRYPICKING, restored cherrypicked text from alleged recording to make a statement opposite to the one in the recording.

Over the last month, I have repeatedly referred this editor to WP:REDFLAG and the violations above on the Talk:R2-45 page. Editor does not respond to the objections.

Discussion concerning Prioryman

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Prioryman

Sfarney's complaints are baseless. The article alleges nothing - it reports, neutrally, a controversy between Scientologists and non-Scientologists about statements made in lectures and in print by L. Ron Hubbard. It was poorly sourced and non-neutral before I gave it a systematic rewrite a few weeks ago . I have already explained (see ) that citing Hubbard's lectures and publications, which can be purchased online or accessed in a number of academic and research libraries, is entirely permissible under WP:PRIMARY "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - in fact, I've written featured articles which not only draw on primary sources but include images of them in the article (see Carl Hans Lody for an example). Sfarney's complaints are equivalent to someone complaining that one shouldn't quote from the Bible in an article about a biblical concept. I shouldn't have to point out how nonsensical that is. I've already told him what the relevant policies are, and he has failed to find any support for his complaints when he forum-shopped them to WP:AN/I and WP:RSN last month. This is just more of the same, I'm afraid. There will be a need to address his own tendentious and disruptive conduct and I'll raise that separately shortly. Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sfarney is wrong again. The Auditor is available in the British Library, where I'm typing this - look in the catalogue . I've personally seen the so-called "death warrant" (which it isn't, but I'll excuse Sfarney his hyperbole). Yes, I do have the lectures personally. I didn't look them up on the Internet. If Sfarney can't be bothered to get off his backside and either buy the lectures and publications or look them up in the research libraries and private collections that have them, he has no business whining about those of us who have taken the trouble to do that. As for his misguided WP:REDFLAG claims, the only claim being made "supported purely by primary sources" is that Hubbard said certain things in certain lectures on certain dates, without any attempt being made to interpret what he meant by those things. This is exactly what WP:PRIMARY permits: "an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source". Finally, the blog in question is published by Tony Ortega, a journalist and published author who focuses on Scientology and is widely cited by many reliable sources, but who Sfarney objects to for ideological reasons. Bottom line, Sfarney is too lazy to do any research himself and doesn't accept the WP:PRIMARY policy. This AE complaint is a (further) waste of time. Prioryman (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

I doubt there's much to worry about in this report. One thing to consider is WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there's no requirement that a source be easily available (e.g. on-line). If a source is not easily available, that does not by itself mean that WP:V is not satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (sfarney)

1. Contrary to what Prioryman says, the death warrants allegedly published in Auditor magazines are not available in any standard library or document source.
2. Prioryman does not justify using a blog as an RS.
3. Prioryman does not assert that he personally purchased the recordings and excerpted them, which prompts a question: In this case, an editor makes absurd claims about an inaccessible primary source without showing that he accessed the material personally. Must anyone who wishes to review the edits purchase the expensive materials? I understand WP:PAYWALL, but this is ridiculous.
4. Prioryman does not address the WP:CHERRYPICKING in paragraph 3 whereby a statement is made to say the opposite of the recording quoted.
5. Prioryman does not address WP:REDFLAG: challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources

Grammar's Li'l Helper 15:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

How can I suggest alternate text when no acceptable secondary source comments on the subject? The whole article makes outrageous claims that should be a roaring fire in the office of the FBI, but the only sources are primary, self-published, and fringe? Grammar's Li'l Helper 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It is highly improper for Prioryman to attribute motivations to my comments or edits ("objects to for ideological reasons") -- this comprises one form of a WP:Personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Prioryman has used PA throughout his reply ("too lazy", "can't be bothered to get off his backside", "whining").

WP:REDFLAG is a subtopic of WP:FRINGE. Since no consensus of secondary sources exists, an compendium of WP:PRIMARY and blogs is not appropriate for building an encyclopedia. ... articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. ... Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

And no, Tony Ortega's blog is not a reliable source for exceptional claims. It is not clear why Prioryman brings up the subject -- Ortega is no longer a cited source for the article, though he has been in the past. And even then, Ortega says his evidence "suggests" that issuing death threats was a Scientology policy.. Ortega based his "suggestion" on Food & Drug Administration documents -- not on police reports. Significantly, Ortega has not found a reputable publication for his speculations. Grammar's Li'l Helper 19:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Prioryman

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I don't think I'm going to draw a conclusion based on principles in an Arb case, such as Purpose of Misplaced Pages, so you might be diluting the case a bit. Reading the talk page, it seems reasonable discussion is taking place and the article has been more or less quiet for a while. Yes, you have have quoted REDFLAG and CHERRYPICKING many times on the talk page but that alone doesn't mean much, it is the context that is at issue. Prioryman has restored material a few times, once a revert, and he probably would be wise to tread carefully, but unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything sanctionworthy. This is still more of a content issue than an AE issue. Sfarney (Grammar's Li'l Helper) seem to have doubts about sources you don't have access to, which isn't a reason to file, and when asked to suggest substitute text, you divert the discussion and start quoting WP:REDFLAG again instead of offering replacement text. I'm open to other interpretations, but not inclined to do anything here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Prioryman, please keep it a bit more civil. I know there is a lot of frustration, but we don't need to ramp up the stress level in this matter. Grammar's Li'l Helper / Sfarney always has the option of starting a neutrally worded RFC on the matter if he feels that a larger audience is needed, but what I see here is a disagreement regarding sources, not a violation of Arb restrictions on Scientology. I would also note that WP:SOURCEACCESS is pretty clear that not all sources need to be easy to access. You could start by asking Prioryman (who has already said where some came from) or ask others for help. If one or more of the sources didn't hold up, then you would have a case for removing information or even misconduct, but you haven't proven anything, you have simply doubted him without taking the steps to verify or disprove the information yourself. I recommend a close without action at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not saying Prioryman is correct in any assertion, but you are making sweeping claims that aren't entirely supported by policy and your tone is combative rather than cooperative. You keep wikilinking REDFLAG and FRINGE pointlessly, we know the relevant policies. If I could offer any advice (again) it would be to focus on one or two sources and start a talk page discussion only on those, or start an RFC. What is and isn't "fringe" is often (but not always) subject to interpretation, which is why we follow the sources and discuss on the talk page, then live with the consensus. AE typically isn't the place to make that determination because admin do not determine content. What is "represented fairly and proportionately" is an editorial function, not an administrative function. Saying "Since no consensus of secondary sources exists" is absolutist, and you can't prove a negative. If the source shouldn't be used (and the text that is supported by it) you need to develop a consensus on the talk page for it. What we shouldn't do (and I won't do) is have AE be the decision maker on content. As I don't see him acting in bad faith nor behaving egregiously, I'm unswayed from my previous comments and prone to close with no action if another admin doesn't come in soon with a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)