This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 4 July 2016 (→Statement by {Non-party}: not again - statement by Robert McClenon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Initiated by Sfarney

Involved parties

• Sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Prioryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Feoffer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Damotclese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slashme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thimbleweed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• The Wordsmith
• Prioryman
• Feoffer
• Damotclese
• Slashme
• Thimbleweed
• BiologistBabe

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• 8 April 2016 - Query to RSN on whether the Tony Ortega blog is a WP:RS to support extraordinary criminal allegations.
• 15 April 2016 - Query to ANI on copyright violations of (1) an image used in the article and (2) a link to a page hosting an unlicensed copyright recording.
• 21 April 2016 - FFD decision. Admin decided image is in violation and deleted it. The file had been uploaded and linked by Feoffer on 15 April 2016.
• 30 April 2016 - Query to ANI. I reopened to get definitive answer on WP:ELNEVER. Instead of an answer on copyright, I was threatened with being blocked.
• 5 May 2016 - Query to ANI. I reopened a second time to get definitive answer on WP:ELNEVER. It was answered and I closed the question.
• 26 may 2016 - AE closure. I asked for enforcement of the Scientology 2009 provisions on Prioryman.
• 30 May 2016 - AE closure. A week later, Prioryman retaliated with a counter-request for sanctions against me.
• 6 June 2016 - AE appeal closure. I appealed the 12-month topic ban sanction.

Statement by Sfarney

(BiologistBabe (talk · contribs) was a minor WP:TEAM member.)

A TEAM of editors/administrator is working against Scientology arbitration of 2009 to advocate against Scientology. The editors of R2-45 use/d WP:cherrypicked quotes, blog speculations, an image in violation of WP:COPYVIO, a single book mention from 50 years ago (no other critical books mention the subject), and WP:FRINGE theory from a non-expert to accuse Scientology of

1. publishing lists of people to be killed,
2. death threats to intimidate enemies,
3. ordering people to commit suicide,
4. advising believers to commit suicide, and
5. being founded by a "malignant narcissist". R2-45 cites a diagnosis by sociology professor Stephen A. Kent, 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 WP:REDFLAG: "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 15.1, editorial and content violations are sanctionable. There is real factor of WP:BLP. 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 Tom Cruise 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:

1. The Wordsmith has a private collection of Scientology literature and knows more about the cult than "most Scientologists" -- i.e., possible WP:COI (cultist or ex-cultist)
2. After filing the AE, complainant Prioryman canvassed The Wordsmith to preside over the proceeding.
3. The Wordsmith banned me as an SPA,WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney which proved false in the appeal.
4. 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 R2-45 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. Grammar's Li'l Helper 15:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Prioryman is the same ChrisO, an admin sanctioned during the original Scientology ArbComm and partially pardoned in 2012.here Grammar's Li'l Helper 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 sanction. The issue has been discussed at length in an appeal by Sfarney at ANI, which upheld the sanction. This seems to be yet another attempt to relitigate it. Prioryman (talk) 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. Softlavender (talk) 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 AE appeal closure, which ended confirming his topic ban. There are no new elements, and therefore there is no need for a replay. --Cavarrone 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. WP:BATTLEGROUND. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Jbhunley

Sfarney is subject to a Scientology topic ban

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.

and this request is a violation of it. Per WP:BANEX 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 (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.) for disruptive editing and violation of an editing sanction to get it through to them to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jbh 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. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

Not again. First, I agree in principle with User:Mendaliv 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 boomerang 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 vexatious litigation. 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 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.

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>

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