Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Case Opened on 04:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 2:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 2:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.


Involved parties

Added 6 April 2009

Statement by Durova

Requesting a follow-on to the COFS arbitration case. After more than a year of relative stability and progress at Scientology topics, recent developments have overwhelmed site processes. On November 26 a thread opened at AE that raised serious concerns about conflict of interest and possible role accounts. Since then several other related concerns have opened at other fora, most of which remain unresolved: a suspected sockpuppet report (unresolved),[1] two checkuser requests (both unfulfilled),[2][3] and a malware linking issue (resolved; Meta has blacklisted the domain). On 6 December a separate thread opened at AE with the first one still open, with the new thread mostly regarding actions by Cirt, and subthreads there have proliferated for two days. Recently Justallofthem announced an intention to introduce concerns about Cirt's use of the admin tools.

So requesting a new case for four reasons:

  1. This expanding dispute is outpacing the community's capacity for response.
  2. Uninvolved admins are unlikely to intervene in multiple large AE threads where many issues are on the table at the same time.
  3. Several of the editors have changed usernames since the previous arbitration case, which makes it harder for uninvolved admins to understand the situation.
  4. Arbitration enforcement is not equipped to respond to misuse of admin tools, if any occurred.

As Cirt's mentor for over a year, I am well aware of his previous history of edit warring. When I conominated him for adminship it was in the belief that he had put that far behind him. Yet recent events are concerning. The scope of concerns here is too broad for a clarification request and deserves thorough attention. Requesting the Committee scrutinize the conduct of all parties. DurovaCharge! 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(to FloNight): What's happened in the last two weeks resembles the dynamic that occurred prior to the original COFS case: a topic ban was proposed, then multiple editors with prior involvement lined up in predictable ways, and multiple side issues got raised faster than anyone could solve them. The effect has been to stymie meaningful progress. The few admins who have shown an interest (Jehochman, Jossi) have histories that make them unsuitable to take action. The situation is like a clogged sink that's filling faster than it can drain with no actual plumber in sight.
Some of the issues here are weighty and the rest are too increasing too swiftly. I asked both sides to slow down and table the low priority issues until the preexisting ones got resolved. Unfortunately, not all the disputants accept that advice. Justa accused me of trying to sweep matters under the rug, then announced his intention to expand the second AE thread with admin conduct issues. I certainly don't intend to sweep anything under the rug or shield anybody from legitimate scrutiny, yet AE is not equipped to handle admin conduct issues. In two weeks AE has proven inadequate to the numerous Scientology-related issues already before it. There have, I think, been other post-arbitration attempts at formal dispute resolution (I'll leave the Wikipedians who edit these areas to introduce that). I wish things hadn't come to this, but RFAR really seems like the right call under the present circumstances. DurovaCharge! 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDamon

I strongly suspected something like this would eventually happen, and feel some culpability in the matter as the one who initiated the incident report that became the first of the recent WP:AE reports. Nevertheless, I stand by that report.

My concerns are simple. I have edited in many areas of Wikipedia, and in particular recently found myself on the receiving end of long-term abusive sockpuppetry in an unrelated family of articles about political groups. As an editor, I should not be expected to work with or tolerate abusive sockpuppetry -- much less WP:ROLE accounts. When several long-quiescent accounts started editing in the Scientology series again, I was made aware of something that I hadn't known previously: That several of the accounts, notably Misou and Shutterbug, were confirmed socks editing from a Church of Scientology-owned IP address. This appears, at least to me, to be an open-and-shut case of sockpuppetry and/or role accounts. As the accounts in question are already well-established as single-purpose ones, I do not understand why they/she/he were permitted to continue.

In the original ArbCom, one of the principles agreed upon was "Multiple editors with a single voice", establishing that it is difficult to determine strict sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in cases where shared IP addresses are claimed, and thus remedies are to be behavior-based for such cases. But when the IP addresses in question belong to the organization that the Wikipedia article is about, it ceases to be merely sock/meatpuppetry, and starts leaning into WP:ROLE territory: Accounts created on behalf of the organization in question that exist for the sole purpose of pushing that organization's positive perspective.

Again, this is simple: I and other editors who find themselves interested in Scientology enough to contribute to this body of articles should not have to "compete" with a person or people working directly for the Church of Scientology. I am neutral on Scientology itself, but I have a very strong POV regarding this. --GoodDamon 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To FloNight

For my part, I was hoping the community would handle this, but I only have one complaint and I'm not sure why it requires such a complex environment as this one to handle. My points are simple:

  1. Shutterbug, Misou, and several other accounts were confirmed socks.
  2. They claimed a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands."
  3. This argument fell apart recently on closer inspection, as the proxy they were claiming has edited nearly exclusively in Scientology topics.
  4. The IP address in question belonged to the Church of Scientology.
  5. For the reasons above, the accounts should be treated as sock/meat puppets and likely WP:ROLE accounts.

The evidence is very clear cut and Wikipedia policies are Wikipedia policies. I don't know why what should be a very, very simple event -- topic-banning interest-conflicted role accounts -- requires so much effort. There has been a lot of noise generated about other editors, but those have been content disputes. I see no reason not to cut through that noise and deal with the sock accounts, and one very good reason to do so: As long as editing is being done by accounts associated directly with the Church of Scientology, it is very difficult for other editors -- Scientologist and non-Scientologist alike -- to edit in the same area. And we shouldn't be expected to. --GoodDamon 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To Justanother

Call it what you will. Reopening, calling for enforcement, whatever. Perhaps you are partially correct; the old ArbCom happened before I stumbled upon the Scientology articles in the first place, and there are no doubt all sorts of aspects to it I'm unaware of; it was huge and cumbersome, while the issue I perceive is clear-cut and simple. Perhaps there are good reasons why "many editors, one voice" was agreed upon, although they do not appear to have edited from a position of humility and acceptance of the notion that they are to be treated as a single account. --GoodDamon 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To Shrampes

After reviewing User:Spidern's edits, I can see why you might initially mistake him/her as a single-purpose account, but even from the start, that account has edited in other areas, and has more recently been editing in more and more diverse fields. Don't mistake the user's initial area of interest as indicative of anything. Someone reviewing my edits at the beginning of my time in Wikipedia might mistake me as a single-purpose account as well. --GoodDamon 02:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a single-purpose account. Some people have just one area of interest, and as long as they don't possess an inherent conflict in that area, being a single-purpose account is fine. It's when there are SPA and COI issues combined that things become problematic, and for the record the only SPAs involved in this discussion that I am aware of are Shutterbug, Misou, and Bravehartbear. Justallofthem is borderline, but I wouldn't call him/her a single-purpose account. And I'm not familiar enough with the editing habits of the other parties to know one way or another. --GoodDamon 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Shrames

You're missing something very important: The fact that Spidern is a relatively new editor is one of the things you need to take into account. Of course the majority of the edits he has done so far have been associated with Scientology; these are very active and involved pages, and demand significant attention from editors who are interested in Scientology. But you have to note that not only has Spidern edited in several other areas, he has also created several new pages. These are not the behaviors of a single-purpose account. Saying that the majority of his edits are in Scientology, and therefore he is a single-purpose account, is inaccurate. For comparison's sake, this is Shutterbug's edits. See the difference? Long-term involvement, with a singular focus. Now here are my edits. Once again, you can see that Scientology takes up some time, but if that looks like the editing history of a single-purpose account to you, I'm not sure what else there is to say. If anything, it's the editing history of someone who apparently likes to argue, but beyond that, I challenge you to find a pattern to my interests. I'm a pretty varied guy. --GoodDamon 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerning Shutterbug's argument

I just want to point out that Shutterbug's argument is essentially an attempt to invalidate the entire WP:SOCK policy. Now that, as Spidern points out below, there is another Church-owned IP address, this is starting to veer into WP:DUCK territory. --GoodDamon 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To Jayen466

I have a simple analogy for you. Let's say a group of accounts started editing in the article about Macintosh computers. They removed negative material about the computer system's market share, saying with basically one voice that the information was wrong, or taken out of context, or otherwise inappropriate for the article. Other editors at the article finally got sick of this behavior, and filed reports on these users. Checkuser results confirmed they were sharing several IP addresses, and the addresses were registered to Apple Inc., presenting what appeared to be an irreconcilable conflict-of-interest for the pro-Apple editors. "Yes," they replied, "we use Apple computers and sometimes edit from Apple's Cupertino campus, but we're not doing this for Apple, we're just a bunch of individual editors on an Apple-owned proxy who all happen to share the same belief that anything negative about Macintosh computers does not belong in the article. We can't provide any evidence that this is true, but you can't prove it is false, so don't topic-ban us." How much credence would you grant them? --GoodDamon 02:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

I do not know why Durova has named me as a party... I made a couple of comments at WP:AE, but that's all. I kindly ask the clerk to remove me as a party, as I am not. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Justallofthem

This action was not at my request. Please note that all I asked of WP:AE was that "Cirt should minimally be strongly cautioned about maintaining WP:NPOV in the Scientology articles." I still strongly believe that.

However, seeing as we are here now: I have a very unique perspective on Cirt that is likely shared by very few. Cirt began editing here three or four usernames back, in 2006, a few months before I began, also a few name changes back for me. He originally edited in an NRM-related area and was quickly party to an arbitration related to his editing behavior which was closed with editing recommendations for all parties involved but no sanctions. In October 2006, Cirt moved over to Scientology articles, where I encountered him early on. Although our first few exchanges were cordial, I soon found him to be an aggressive POV-warrior with little care for the quality of his sources. Repeated experience with him right on up to the present has not much changed my mind about him. Cirt is a man with a mission. He is, and has always been, incredibly prolific and that prolificacy is, and always has been, exercised in the direction of forwarding a POV. I find it disturbing that admin Cirt is still "apologizing" for the exact same sort of "mistakes" that he "apologized" for in that first arbitration over two years and what, 60,000 edits? ago. I don't buy it. If the arbitration panel is interested in looking into the FULL history of ALL involved editors, then I am all for that. That history matters, especially in Cirt's case.

To FloNight

I agree that both of the issues raised at arbitration enforcement are well within the purview of that forum and of the remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision. There are two distinct issues. The first, brought by GoodDamon, relates to whether there is activity on the part of Shutterbug that violates the terms of the decision. I presented my opinion that there is none but am otherwise not involved in that issue. The other issue is the one I brought that asserts that Cirt has demonstrated repeatedly that his edits and interpretation of policy are skewed in the direction of his anti-Scientology POV to an unacceptable degree. Both of these can be addressed as enforcement of the existing conditions on Shutterbug and on the Scientology articles as a whole. The amount of evidence presented should, IMO, be seen as a positive, not as the negative that some would have it. As regards my mention that I found something else I wanted to bring up, I said it was "use of the admin bits", not misuse. Whether it was misuse will be for others to decide and even if it was misuse, it would likely be chalked up to another "honest mistake". I was going to present it not as damning evidence that Cirt should be de-sysoped but as simply another example of the heavy-handed and highly POV way that Cirt (talk · contribs) has settled himself over the Scientology articles. That is evident to any that look at his edit history in depth, disregarding the padding of non-controversial work such anti-vandalism (note though that he frequently calls what should be content dispute "vandalism" or "Page blanking, removal of content" when it comes from what might be a Scientology-sympathetic POV; witness this edit yielding this warning). --Justallofthem (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On GoodDamon's remark

GoodDamon makes a couple of points that do not hold up but I do not want to argue them as it simply comes down to rearguing a closed arbitration. I have said time and again that GoodDamon's enforcement issue is not enforcement at all but a call to redo the arbitration. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To Spidern

You may want to slow down a bit on trying to prove your case in your opening statement. There will be plenty of opportunity if the arbitrators decide to hear this case. There are a number of things in those diffs that you present that I would take issue with including questionable calls as to whether an edit constitutes "pov-pushing" and bringing up a lot of material not directed related to Shutterbug or to Wikipedia, i.e. edits by Misou over on Wikinews for which he was sanctioned (while I would LOVE to talk about Wikinews, I am afraid that is beyond the range of this forum). Just my $0.02. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

I wish things hadn't come to this point. I accepted Durova's suggestion to table non-urgent disputes until other issues were resolved. I do not believe I've misused the admin tools in any way. Yet if the Committee wishes to open a case, I welcome scrutiny. Whatever venue things take I'd just like to clear the air. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I am trying to recall prior attempts at dispute resolution and listing them above under Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. Example: RFCs, Mediation, 3O, wikiquette alerts. I believe there may be more, and I invite others to add to that above list as well. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Bravehartbear

I don't believe that the issues require arbitration. Tools like banning both editors in a dispute for a 24hrs period (for cool down) have not being used to the greatest extend possible. Also the extend of the dispute has not being determined properly. Being this a controversial issue very few editors can honestly maintain a NPOV and there is a lot of head bumping. What's really happening is that some editors that have that have a pro-Scientology inclination (posting mostly positive Scientology info) were gone for a few months and those editors that had a critical anti-Scientology inclination (posting mostly negative Scientology info) had a leave to create great changes in the pages with little monitoring. Now that the pro-Scientology inclined editors are back they are alarmed and the headbumping started. Right now consensus have been established in many issues in the main Scientology talk page. Because the page is frozen real talk is taking place. I say let the parties resolve this. The current management tools for dispute resolution need to be used before arbitration is even thought of. Bravehartbear (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the extend of the conflct here. This whole situacion has been artificialy created because the adminitrators have failed not only to put the situacion under control but have been contributing to the conflict. I thought this was just a small conflict but what is realy going on is a power strugle to gain ownership of page and remove the oponents.Bravehartbear (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shrampes

I do not think that I should be on this list nor do I know much about scientology but I take the chance to tell my story: I was editing a couple of times in the Dianetics article. I then got reverted by Spidern when removing a source that had nothing to do with Dianetics at all. Spidern is an editor who edits only Scientology articles, removing sources and such. This strange occurrence drew my attention to Spidern's activities and finally tothis Arbitration page where I commented that the occurrences reminded me of a fight between WP:SPAs, Cirt being one of them, in a sense (Diff [4]. Several minutes(!) later Cirt informs me that I am a suspected sock puppet of "Highfructosecornsyrop" because - I assume - I edited in the article about HFCS. Unfortunately this is the only observation I can contribute, weird as it is. I cannot see that Cirt is abusing his Administrator tools but I share the POV that he is trying to discourage editors who do not share his POV while letting at least one WP:SPA (Spidern, who should be on this panel) go by. I would suggest to go through Cirts and Spiderns contributions and make an assessment on the quality and POV of his numerous edits. On the Dianetics article Spidern saw the point in the end. The article stands with my edits and the sources I found.Shrampes (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to GoodDamon

I had the impression (on the other AE page) that Shutterbug is chased around for being a WP:SPA? It is my understanding that a conflict of interest is only of interest for the community if it damages the project. I am not familiar enough with the scope of Shutterbug's edits and I do not have the time to go through hundreds of edits. But if there is a damage for Wikipedia it must be possible to name it. Shrampes (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Response 2 to GoodDamon

GoodDamon, User:Spidern is a member of Wikipedia since 6 weeks, has done 442 article edits, 372 on scientology and 35 not on scientology [5]. I got fooled until I took a look at the articles but it is that many. Along with that he has contributed 165 talk page edits, 152 on scientology. Maybe I am just a bit picky, but to me this is "a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia", or WP:SPA. Most of edits were to delete references or to add non-scholar sources. That sometimes has a certain value just as Shutterbug's or Cirt's edits have a certain value. As long as they are open about their affiliations there should be no problem. But why is Spidern not in this RFAR? Shrampes (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Misou

Yes, this needs to be done. I think that everyone editing in the Scientology edits must be forced to declare any personal interest, any information about payments or advantages received for editing etc. Then, Scientology is the only project I know with MANY HUNDREDS of one-sided articles (and many pushed to existence by a common source who was called "Smee" a while ago and is now "Cirt"). The 2007 Arbcom had one huge mistake: it focused on the "bad scientologists" and left out half the picture, was totally blind towards POV editors from the "anti-scientology camp". As long as this discrimination continues there will be no peace ever. This is to be avoided this time. Also, the probation over the articles needs to be renewed and enforced. Otherwise I am not available for this right now, time wise, but will keep an eye as possible. If someone has a question or so please send me an email through WP. Thanks. Misou (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shutterbug

Yes, please take this case. I can do no edits without being attacked by either Cirt or somebody else who pulls up the unfinished "Arbitration" of last year like a dead pack rat. It sounded ok that time but it turns out to be too indistinct, too open for arbitrary attacks etc., especially since I found more time for edits again. I am not going to leave voluntarily and I will continue to use a) my own computer, b) public computers, c) my wireless laptop, d) computers in the Church of Scientology and any station I please. Why couldn't the old Arbitration decide on me "Scientology proxy issue"? Because it's a lie to say that "everyone using the same internet access MUST be the same person". This issue is so fluffed up, unbelievable, that I am happy to have another ArbCom. Apologies to the members of this one for the waste of time, but the last one left some things open which I only realize now. Shutterbug (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Spidern

I note that you are following the "smear everything on one person" tactic that has been used in the old ArbCom. What does an IP from the "church of scientology san francisco" to do with me? I have never been there but if so and if I would have used their wireless net (if they have one), what's the significance? What about an IP registered to That's the filtering proxy we are talking about for 18 months now. What does a "ban" on Wikinews (which on top of that does not exist) have to do with this? Aside from its irrelevance it is a lie. I have never been banned on Wikinews, and not even blocked because of any internet line I used. That's shabby tactics you are using, half-truths, random "bad sounding" information. Shutterbug (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are more details about me personally[6]. Shutterbug (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466


Many articles in this topic area are poorly sourced. Scholarship is ignored. Operation Clambake has more citations than scholarly standard works that are required reading in university syllabuses. Self-published sites and poor journalistic sources are employed to score points. I would like to see the arbitration committee take this case and consider strengthening existing article probation remedies to ensure adherence to the highest standards of sourcing, as per WP:RS#Scholarship. Such new remedies might exclude or limit the use of the following:

  • Primary sources (e.g. Hubbard's writings, court documents), whether used in favour of Scientology or as ammunition against it: excluded unless they have been cited in reliable sources published by reputable publishing houses.
  • Essays on self-published websites that have not been published by a reputable publishing house: excluded.

Use of such sources to contribute article content should be made an actionable AE offence, leading to blocks and topic bans.

Allegations of COI editing

The present situation is clearly intolerable. There has to be a clear decision as to whether it is okay for Shutterbug and other Scientologists to edit, even if they do some of their edits from IP addresses registered to the Church of Scientology. My personal impression here is that we are dealing with individuals, who should be allowed to edit like anyone else. Other editors are free to disagree. However, I would suggest that once a decision is taken, it has to be adhered to without second-guessing. If Shutterbug, say, is allowed to edit, any further references to her edits as "edit by Church of Scientology", or any further attempts to invalidate her views based on her religion, must be considered a clear and actionable WP:PA and AE offence resulting in a temporary topic ban for the editor concerned. Of course, all these standards, incl. the existing remedies formulated in the previous arbcom, should be applied to Scientologist editors as well. Jayen466 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Fahrenheit451

I have decided to refuse the offered contract of adding my username as a party to the scientology Arbitration. I refuse all hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion under State of Florida Law. Any discussion of this should be directed to my talk page.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment to AndroidCat

I think your observations are spot-on correct. I see a lack of social intelligence on the part of some admins in this Arb. Clearly, the outcome is not sequitur to relevant facts. But, because of the laissez faire policies on admin misconduct, I don't foresee this situation getting remedied anytime soon.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by AndroidCat

I certainly didn't want to participate in the annual time-suck, but having been named as a party to this event, listed among the guilty, perhaps I should leave a few words.

  • I doubt this will be much of a patch on a continually erupting problem. (One almost suspects this as gamesmanship as part of someone's plan.)
    • Even with the WikiHitThemWithSticksHitThemWithSticks! topic-banning of involved editors, the problem will continue.
      • Expecting that institutional socks will vanish and CHECKUSER requests will decrease after several institutional IP ranges are blocked is .. wow. If institutional editing is assumed, then this is an institution that is well known for setting up dummy ISP accounts to hide ownership.
      • Expecting that the articles will drift to some happy norm: That's not going to happen. It's a topic that polarizes even among academic circles.
      • Here's a heretical notion: the articles have been hugely improved by conflict. Is there a way to limit it and harness it?
    • Umm... The arbitrator discussion seem to be giving the impression that Jossi has just stepped out for a smoke or something, and when he returns, he'll have to get back in line. Aren't we talking about rather severe warping of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and articles going back over several years? Almost.. even.. a dreaded.. Single Purpose Account? (Sorry if this has all been previously discussed privately on secret channels, I like candor, transparency, and honesty, and hope this is properly addressed out in the open.)
  • My general impression is that this RFAR is a side-line for some sort of Wikipedia political faction maneuvering. brb, popcorn. AndroidCat (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

  • Comment, it is not clear to me why the Community can not resolve the matter with the existing sanctions and other options available to the Community? Can you spell that out more specifically. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Accept. Thanks for the additional comments, they were helpful. Will look at all involved users per usual practice. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept. I think there is all the history we could need to show that this area presents problems not typical of most content on the site. Even if it is only a matter of reviewing and consolidating material that has been covered in the past, it looks to me like a case in Arbitration, to consider the conduct of all named parties and any others, could be helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept to consider allegations of co-ordinated editing and conflicts of interest, and also for a check of the efficacy of existing remedies on the COFS case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept to review current status of this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept per Morven. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept (after the fact). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.


Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality of sources

3) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding apparent impropriety

6) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Passed 11 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


7) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

8) Administrators are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. If an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Return of access levels

9) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

10.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors with a single voice

11) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Passed 7 to 4 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of accounts

12) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility of organizations

13) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Passed 8 to 0 (with 4 abstentions) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

14) Editors must take particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all our content policies, especially: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

External links in biographies of living people

15) The decision to include an external link in a biography of a living person must be motivated by the objective of preventing potential harm to the subject. While external links to an article can be helpful to the reader, they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. In particular, external links may not be used to introduce material which, if included within the body of the article, would fail to satisfy Wikipedia's policies of neutrality or verifiability.

Passed 9 to 2 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living people and real usernames

16) While the use of a real name as a username may enable contributions to be more easily traced to an individual, it may also be open to abuse, through impersonation. This is particularly so when the editor is contributing within a topic where article content exists for a living person of the same name. In these circumstances, the editor's user page should make it clear whether or not he or she is the same individual who is the subject of the article, and the editor may be asked to prove off-wiki that he or she is actually that individual.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up tags

17) In appropriate instances, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good-faith participation welcome

18) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Feuds and quarrels

19) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute or series of disputes is focused on Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and approximately 430 related articles, mostly within the Scientology portal, and has spilled over into various associated article-related processes (for example: the BLP noticeboard, the reliable sources noticeboard, articles for deletion, and others).

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


2) The dispute is longstanding: this is the fourth Scientology-related arbitration case in four years. Prior cases are: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (2005), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo (2006) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS (2007). More recently, the dispute has become lower-key but is ongoing and corrosive, involving persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources on multiple articles. The corrosive atmosphere has resulted in normally neutral editors adopting polarized positions in countless minor sub-feuds (cf. Evidence presented by Durova). The topic has become a magnet for single purpose accounts, and sockpuppetry is rife (examples: [7], [8]).

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Characterising the dispute

3.0) This longstanding dispute is a struggle between two rival factions: admirers of Scientology and critics of Scientology.

A) Editors from each side have gamed policy to obtain advantage and disputes have spilled over into, for example, articles for deletion, the reliable sources noticeboard, the conflict of interests noticeboard, and sometimes the administrators' noticeboard.

B) Aggravating factors have been (i) the presence of editors openly editing from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities; and (ii) the apparent presence of notable critics of Scientology, from several Internet organisations, apparently editing under their own names and citing either their own or each other's self-published material.

C) Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo.

D) The worst casualties have been biographies of living people, where attempts have been repeatedly made to slant the article either towards or against the subject, depending on the point of view of the contributing editor.

E) However, this problem is not limited to biographies and many Scientology articles fail to reflect a neutral point of view and instead are either disparaging or complimentary.

F) Neutral editors entering this topic are frequently attacked from both sides and stand little chance of making progress until the key players disengage or are required to disengage.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors with a single voice

4.1) The following accounts are single-purpose accounts focused on Scientology. These accounts edit similar articles and contribute to similar discussions from similar points of view from common IP addresses ([9], [10]) in a manner impossible to distinguish from sockpuppets and in a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest:

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Low activity single purpose accounts

5) The following editors are single purpose accounts who have contributed towards creating a hostile environment:

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Real names and biographies of living people

6) The following editors are, or appear to be, the subject of Scientology-related biographies of living people:

Passed 9 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(Now moot as the editors have contacted the Committee)

Editing environment

7) The editing environment surrounding the Scientology topic area is hostile. Newcomers are treated rudely. Bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, edit wars, soapboxing, and other disruptions are common occurrences.[32], [33], [34], [35]. [36]. [37], [38], [39].

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

8) Scientology-related articles have been under article probation since September 2007 (RfAr/COFS). Administrators are expected to set an example, and more so under such circumstances, and not contribute towards making the environment in Scientology more hostile. Examples include:

A) David Gerard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) focused on the person and not the content in opposing deletion at WP:AFD for a series of seven Scientology-related articles.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] already on article probation.[47] Although David Gerard later apologised, his remarks had already influenced the tone of the debate.[48]

B) Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) peremptorily closed three Scientology-related article for deletion discussions[49][50][51] and placed a poorly judged block on the nominator[52].

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


9) AndroidCat (talk · contribs) is a Scientology-focused single purpose account,[53] who has edit warred with neutral parties to include original research in articles, and has edit warred and apparently tag-team edited to reinstate WP:BLP violations.[54][55][56][57]

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar

10) Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) is primarily focused on Scientology-related articles[58], and has contributed to the toxic atmosphere with:incivility[59], [60], [61], [62] and edit-warring [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]).

Passed 9 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


11) Anynobody (talk · contribs) and alternate account Anyeverybody (talk · contribs) were the primary contributor to L. Ron Hubbard and the military and USS PC-815, a ship on which Hubbard served.[68][69]. This editor has engaged in pushing a point-of-view[70][71] and has added original graphic material with the apparent object of disparaging the subject.[72][73][74][75][76] A prior Scientology arbitration determined that this editor harrassed User:Justanother, an editor with an opposing point-of-view.[77]

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


12) From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not appear to have deliberately misused administrative tools.

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


13) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) significantly edited, between August 2005[78] and September 2007[79], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[80] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[81] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[82]; declined a CSD[83]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[84] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[85][86] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material[87][88][89][90][91].

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


14) Derflipper (talk · contribs) is more likely than not either the sockpuppet or meatpuppet of a single purpose account. This editor shared the same equipment as Shutterbug and TaborG [92]; their first ever article edit and all but two article talk space edits are Scientology-related ([93], [94]).

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


15) Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs) is heavily focused on Scientology and with many Scientology articles in his top edited articles. This user is a battlefield editor; has abused WP:BLP policy (examples:[95][96][97][98][99][100]) and also created an attack page pushing his POV within his/her userspace (User:Fahrenheit451/Guide).

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


16) Hkhenson (talk · contribs) self-identifies as Keith Henson, a prominent anti-cult activist, and writer.[101] In a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest, he has engaged in the promotion of his own position in his own biography[102]; promotion of his own projects in an associate's BLP[103]; promotion of a society of which he was a founder[104]; and has created and participated in articles promoting his own theories[105][106]; citation of his own works in articles, and edit-warring to keep the content in the article[107], [108], [109].

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(Now moot as the editor has contacted the Committee)


17) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic though this has been offset by edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda[110], [111], [112], [113].

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


18) During the course of this proceeding, John254 (talk · contribs) was banned by the community for sockpuppetry[114]. Among his other infractions, John254 edited the case pages in this arbitration under two different usernames (John254 and Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs)), presenting inconsistent workshop proposals, with the apparent intent of causing drama and inflaming the dispute; this was not the first time in which John254 appeared intent on creating unnecessary controversy on already drama-laden dispute-resolution pages.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


19) During the course of this proceeding, in which certain allegations had been made against Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jossi voluntarily resigned his adminship on 23 December 2008 by email to the Arbitration Committee, when he stated he was retiring from Wikipedia.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


20) Justallofthem (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who has engaged in sockpuppetry[115]; has used Wikipedia process to pursue a campaign against Cirt.[116], [117], [118]; and incivility during this proceeding.[119]

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


21) Misou (talk · contribs) is a Scientology-focused single purpose account[120] who has edited from Scientology-operated equipment both on Wikipedia[121] and on WikiNews[122]; has been blocked on Wikipedia for personal attacks and incivility[123]; has been blocked on WikiNews for concealing connections with the Church of Scientology[124]; and continued to behave in an uncivil manner[125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130].

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


22) Currently inactive, Orsini (talk · contribs) edited vigorously on a now-deleted BLP in order to include unpublished and disparaging content on the subject.[131][132][133], while claiming familiarity with the subject's writing style,[134] and arguing strenuously at AFD that the article should be kept. The article was later deleted as an attack page.

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

23) Inactive since giving evidence in this proceeding, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) who also edits as Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) and also seemingly from anonymous IPs, is apparently the owner of a website devoted to the study of "destructive cults, controversial groups and movements",[135] and the subject of a biography of a living person, Rick Ross (consultant).

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


24) Inactive since giving evidence in this proceeding, Shrampes (talk · contribs) has edited primarily in Scientology-related articles[136] or in support of other Scientology single purpose accounts (examples: [137], [138]), sometimes from the same IP addresses[139]. This account is in all probability operated by the same puppetmaster as two other Scientology single purpose accounts, of Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs) and Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs).

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


25) Inactive since giving evidence in this proceedings, Shutterbug (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account who has pushed a point of view and engaged in disruption. Disruptive behaviour includes: sockpuppetry on Wikipedia[140][141]); ban evasion on WikiNews[142]; breached neutrality policies[143]); been incivil[144]; and inproperly removed sourced material[145][146].

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dufour

26) Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) was a considerable contributor to Scientology articles, and worked hard to improve the now-deleted Barbara Schwarz attack page, but has since agreed informally, as part of an unblock agreement[147], to not edit within the topic.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


27) Tilman (talk · contribs), a Scientology-focused account,[148] is apparently Tilman Hausherr. Currently less active than before in Wikipedia, this editor has engaged in edit-warring to include primary source material in a biography of a living person[149][150][151][152] at a time when he was actively exchanging insults with the BLP's subject on usenet;[153][154][155]; and continued to edit the biography after this apparent conflict was brought to user's attention.[156]

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Legendary Shadow!

28) The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs) is a second account of sockmaster Richard Rolles (talk · contribs), topic-banned from Scientology-related articles and related talk pages[157].

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


29) Touretzky (talk · contribs) is apparently David S. Touretzky, a notable critic of Scientology, and is focused on Scientology-related articles[158]. In a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest, this editor has contributed heavily to Applied Scholastics, where he is apparently also cited as a source, and has linked, a website critical of Scientology which he apparently operates.[159][160]

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


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.

Jossi's administrator status

1) Because Jossi gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked

2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.

Passed 10 to 1 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope of Scientology topic ban

3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (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 Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

3B) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary topic ban

4) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of discretionary topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

1 June 2012 amendment

Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Amended by motion 11 to 0 at 2:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts with agendas

5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Account limitation

6) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors instructed

8) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;
(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;
(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy 4 to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Review of articles urged

9) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors with a single voice topic-banned and restricted

10) The following accounts are topic-banned from Scientology and each restricted to one account:

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Low activity single purpose accounts topic-banned and restricted

11) The following editors are topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account:

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Real names and biographies of living people (editors instructed)

12) The following editors are requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish their identities or to rename:

and are, in the meantime, topic-banned from Scientology; and restricted to a single account.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(Now moot as the editors have contacted the Committee)

Editing environment (editors cautioned)

13) Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Scientology are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Scientology making this topic a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that all editors adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments, and complying at all times with the policy on biographies of living persons in reference to the various living people whose names come up from time to time in these articles.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AndroidCat topic-banned

14) AndroidCat (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar topic-banned

15) Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Anynobody topic-banned and restricted

16) Anynobody (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO restricted

17) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[161] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. ChrisO is instructed to abide by these restrictions.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Vacated by motion 8 to 1 at 2:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Derflipper topic-banned

18) Derflipper is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 topic-banned

19) Fahrenheit451 is topic-banned from Scientology.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hkhenson instructed

20) Hkhenson is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename and is, in the meantime, topic-banned from Scientology.

Passed 10 to 1 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(Now moot as the editor has contacted the Committee)

Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles

21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

John254 already banned

22) This editor has been banned by the community.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Justallofthem banned

23.1) User:Justallofthem is restricted to one account and banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

Passed 7 to 4 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Misou topic-banned

24) Misou is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Orsini topic-banned

25) Orsini is topic-banned from Scientology.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted

26) User:Rick Alan Ross is requested to contact the Arbitration Committee by email to establish his identity or to rename; instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses; and restricted to one account only with his other named account, User:Rick A. Ross, indefinitely blocked and redirected to the main account.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrampes topic-banned

27) Shrampes is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted

28) User:Shutterbug is topic-banned from Scientology and restricted to one account.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dufour topic-ban replaced

29) Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology: this restriction replaces any prior informal arrangement.

Passed 10 to 1 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tilman topic-banned

30) Tilman is topic-banned from Scientology.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Legendary Shadow! topic-banned

31) The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Scientology. This topic ban replaces the prior informal topic ban. The editor is also restricted to a single account.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


32) Touretzky is topic-banned from Scientology.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Per the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "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
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. 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.

Important notes:

  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Amendments by motion

Modified by motion

The restriction imposed on Jayen466 (talk · contribs) by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case ("Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted.

Passed 10 to 0, at 22:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Modified by motion

Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Passed 11 to 0, at 2:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Modified by motion

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.

Passed 8 to 1, at 2:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Modified by motion

The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from the Scientology topic—that was set down (as "Topic banned from Scientology") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated.

Passed 10 to 1, at 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Modified by motion

The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

Passed 6 to 0, at 23:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions

On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.

Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked (remedy 2)

  • 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Brandon blocked Jpg7051 (talk · contribs),,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and Brandon (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 17:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) NuclearWarfare blocked and
  • 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Brandon (talk · contribs) blocked and Jbsweden9 (talk · contribs).
  • Courcelles 03:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC) blocked

Single purpose accounts with agendas (remedy 5.1)

  • Blocked for a week for violating the above, see AE report (bottom of page).  Sandstein  17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Other remedies

Some were listed here to be limited to one account, where the normal guideline is to have them announce which singular account to be used and block the rest. Some are suspected to be sockpuppets of Shutterbug, as well. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)