Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Case Opened on 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Requests for comment

 * Requests for comment/Terryeo

Statement by ChrisO
Since joining Wikipedia in December 2005, Terryeo has repeatedly come into conflict with a wide range of other users. He has engaged in a persistent and wilful pattern of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith, making strongly POV edits, refusing to abide by consensus, misrepresenting Wikipedia policies to support his POV edits, making legal accusations that at the very least violate the spirit of WP:NLT, removing sources with which he doesn't agree and declining to cite sources for his own edits. He has spent much of the last three months fighting edit wars with other users in a range of articles and one template, all concerning Scientology and related topics. In the process he has violated the 3RR on at least two separate occasions. He has also repeatedly removed content posted by others to talk pages.

My own involvement in this matter came about following a request by User:David Gerard that I take a look at the Dianetics article, which was experiencing a prolonged editing dispute between Terryeo and a number of other editors. Terryeo's approach to editing has caused and is continuing to cause many difficulties with that article. I also became aware that Terryeo was behaving in the same disruptive way across many of the articles that he was editing, indicating a persistent and serious problem. His conduct has been the source of criticism and complaints from many other users.

Following an unsuccessful attempt at mediation, I posted a Request for Comment on this issue on 8 March, which was certified or endorsed by 19 other users. Unfortunately, Terryeo does not appear to have accepted the message of this RfC and has resumed edit warring, particularly on the Dianetics article.

I request that the Arbitration Committee take this case under consideration in view of the continuing intransigent and disruptive behaviour of this user. He appears to have a persistent inability or unwillingness to work with others and his conduct following the RfC leads me to conclude that he does not intend to change his approach.

Evidence supporting this application can be found in the RfC at Requests for comment/Terryeo - with some minor updating, this should be directly admissable as evidence for an RFAr. -- ChrisO 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Terryeo
My "personal attacks" and "accusations of bad faith" have been far less than some other editors and I am doing less of both. But there is a problem between ChrisO and myself and I believe it revolves around ChrisO being unwilling to communicate very much. The Rfc has at least given several editors the opportunity to air our views.

I edit in the area of Dianetics and Scientology. I do so as an expert editor in the sense that I know something of these subjects. My point of view is presented on my user page. I do, without a doubt, make POV edits. On the other hand, I am not a doctrinaire. Generally I attempt to introduce a subject in my area expertise and I stop editing when it is. I also am responsive to other editors when asked questions in my area of expertise and I provide verifications and quotations in my area of expertise to make my answers clear. I understand perfectly well that the area I edit in is controversial; there are many internet publications which present the area differently than the Church of Scientology would have it presented, and publications which are exclusively about the difficulties the Church of Scientology has had. I don't edit against that. I do edit for these subjects to be introduced because these subjects are easily misunderstood.

As an example, ChrisO has said on the Dianetics discussion page that he considers Dianetics to be "at best a conjecture." But Dianetics has sold millions of books and is used every day in many locations by the Church of Scientology. I would have the subject introduced. His editing tells me that he would have the subject reflect his own point of view. Well, that is perfectly fine with me, it is perfectly good with me that Dianectics is presented as a conjecture. But only after the subject has introduced to the reader. He (and some other editors) will not allow the subject to be introduced. The edit war ChrisO mentions is going on and has been going on for some while. The reason it is happening is because a very few editors (like myself) who know the subject are attempting to introduce the subject. A larger number of editors, including ChrisO, refuse to allow the subject to be introduced. It is my position that a person who does not know a subject should not introduce that subject to a reader, though there will be exceptions to this. But there are several expert editors are available in Dianetics and Scientology and they should be the ones whom, through concensus, create an introduction. Then, after the reader understands what is being talked about, the reader can understand the controversy which surrounds a subject. I understand WP:V perfectly well and I don't oppose verified information from any source being presented in any article. I am not a doctrinaire, I don't oppose other points of view. I do know (at least some) Dianetics and Scientology and want those articles to introduce their subjects.Terryeo 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Wikipediatrix
Terryeo, by his own admission, is a Scientologist and considers himself to be an "expert editor" on the subject because of this. However, I would sharply disagree. His posts are seemingly that of an ideologue who cannot abide negative things being reported about Scientology/Dianetics, despite his frequent claims to be open to them. He claims to seek greater clarity of language and explanation in the articles (especially the intros), but his posts are routinely so poorly-written, POV-laden, and ill-conceived that they are quickly reverted by many, many editors. He complains about a lack of communication with him on the discussion pages, even though every attempt I've had to discuss edits with him is returned with non-sequiturs, accusations of a cabal, bad faith, petty hateful insults, or no answer at all. This very morning, in fact, my suggestion that Terryeo provide sources for his specious information was met with an string of utter and complete non-sequiturs. At this late date, having seen so many editors try to reach him and fail, I can only assume that his unapologetic actions are not out of ignorance of Wikipolicy but done as a deliberate disruptive effort to keep Scientology/Dianetics pages in a constant state of chaos. Motivation aside, Terryeo's edits are unquestionably atrociously written, and would require total rewriting even if their content passed muster. The RfC recently held for Terryeo contains more specific details of instances in which Terryeo's behavior has been unforgivable. It is my opinion that Terryeo should be banned from editing certain Scientology/Dianetics/Hubbard related articles to which he is hopelessly unable to see beyond his own Scientologist POV. wikipediatrix 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to UNK's allegations:


 * I'll be happy to debate anyone about these alleged incidents elsewhere, but Terryeo's RfA is not the place to do it. It should also be noted that UNK's behavior on Wikipedia has not been without rudeness, personal attacks, and cyberstalking, and most of his recent contributions consist of harassing Stollery, Tenebrous, and myself. UNK is also a Scientologist , which may or may not serve to explain his zeal against these editors. wikipediatrix 14:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:UNK
Wikipeditrix should be barred from this, she is dishonest and cannot even correct her own behaviour. Evidence: Wikipediatrix has impled in discussion involving Fossa, that Fossa had "openly declared [his] bad faith". Yet, Wikipediatrix could not prove that Fossa openly stated that anywhere. All she could do was point to evidence of bad faith and a quote by another user also accusing Fossa of bad faith: "Your edit summary strikes me as if you edit Wikipediatrix in bad faith.". Here is Fossa's rebuttal, to which Wikipediatrix still has not yet responded. Here, a user warns Wikipediatrix to not make personal attacks. Her response was to remove the warning. The user reposted the warning, and Wikipediatrix removed it again with an edit summary "stop defacing my talk page". Since she obviously didn't accept his warning or apologize or give any indication of trying to correct her behaviour, the user posted the warning again and this time with a 3rr warning. Wikipediatrix still did gave no indication of acknowledging the warning at all, instead she deleted the warnings a 4th time and left a comment claiming the user warning her was defacing her talk page.. A second user had to come and revert Wikipediatrix's own "vandalism" to the talk page. And here, the original user making the warnings gave notice of the policy that states "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Defiant Wikipediatrix still did not adjust her behavior or reform her attitude about the stated policy, but again wrongfully accused the warning user, her edit summary left a personal attack "get a life!" A 3rd user had to come by and revert Wikipediatrix again. and this 3rd user also left additional warnings. Wikipediatrix had another user revert their warnings, which had to be reverted, which Stollery reverted, a 4th user came to revert Stollery and also lock Wikipediatrix's talk page. --UNK 07:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is your [Wikipediatrix's] evidence? So far the only evidence you give is that I apply Scientology word clearing technology, that does not automaticly make me a Scientologist. --UNK 14:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO has not even supply any evidence on why this RfA was submitted. He says "A user conduct RfC has been posted but has not achieved the desired results". The "desired results" of the RfC WERE achieved: outside views were posted. ChrisO did not even get into a dispute with Terreyeo since the RfC was initiated. Based on this, it is my opinion, that ChrisO's claim of failed mediation is false. It seems this RfA is filed from ChrisO's spite. --UNK 10:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard
User:UNK is User:JimmyT and hence indeed a Scientologist. (Probably another checkuser user should verify my conclusion from the IP evidence.) - David Gerard 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User:JimmyT is currently serving a two week block, so this is a clear case of block evasion as well as sock puppeting. Given this, should his statement above be allowed to stand? -- ChrisO 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably - if he were blocked entirely he would still be able to communicate with the AC via email regarding a case, so deleting it from here because he was block evading would only create unnecessary work - David Gerard 10:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IIRC, being blocked is not the same as being banned. Blocked users may still edit from other accounts, as weird as that may seem. Banned users may not edit at all. --Ryan Delaney talk 10:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SpiritofMan
My statement is in support of Terryeo.

I understand ChrisO was invited to the Dianetics article by David Gerard. David set up a WP:SCN project to use WP:NPOV in a certain way. This project consists entirely of people with no training or knowledge of Dianetics and Scientlogy or that are disaffected. They represent a block of self interested point of view editors. David admits to no knowledge of Dianetics and Scientology, so I view his activities, including asking ChrisO to look at the Dianetics article, as directing these one-sided activities. What have the activities of the WP:SCN project force been?

My knowledge is limited to the Dianetics related articles. WP:SCN editors act to rewrite or delete edits supportive of the view Dianetics and Scientology exist as legitamate subjects. They also act to destroy the willingness of opposing editors to edit. ChrisO simple rewrites such articles or edits. As an example; he says as OR, that there are no scientific Dianetic test results. I present a citation for such results. He deletes. After extensive Discussion he rewrites, but only with citations that represent his point of view, with my citations deleted. All the time others delete the citations and keep the OR. Then other WP:SCN editors defend the rewrites by deleting supportive edits. I asked Terryeo on his talk page to present a table of these as ChrisO has presented his citations. Thus the so called "edit wars" with Terryeo, and myself for that matter. The WP:SCN editors demonstrate no intention of actually listening to Terryeo or allowing his edits in a fair way. In my case these editors often just delete sections summarily without discussion. Edit summaries often cite "too glowing" or "looks like advertizing copy" or "POV pushing" when WP:V citations are present. I think just the opposite is true. To delete citations supportive of the subject to keep OR or to keep only citations that are disproved by the citation is not in accordance with WP:V. It is wrong. It is simply discouraging to non-WP:SCN editors.

In Summary, as I presented in Mediation, the calling parties say "NPOV" but delete all fairness and citations that fairly represent the validity of the subject. They support only that which vilifies it. Terryeo has been caught in the sights of David Gerard's WP:SCN people and does not deserve to be banned from Wiki for citing the validity of the subject at hand, while allowing the opposing point of view. If WP:SCN people only are allowed to edit, that may "win" the edit war, but delete WIKI as an unbiased source of information on the subject, that treats both side fairly. Why not just delete all pro-citations, and cut and paste in the POVs of xenu.com and clambake.com and call that WIKI:NPOV? This is what the calling parties have been doing in fact. Terryeo is just a balancing force. Spirit of Man 17:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist
I have been involved with some success and some failure over a few years in editting controversial articles related to science. I came to the Dianetics article about the time that User:ChrisO invited me to help with a conflict with User:Terryeo over the inclusion of criticism of dianetics in the article. To those who are not used to dealing with true believers it may be hard to see why his actions are so problematic, so I will try to break them down:


 * 1) User:Terryeo generally acts as though the ideal article on Dianetics would be one that is free from any criticism by attempting to claim NPOV violations.
 * 2) If people point out that criticisms should be reported as per NPOV, User:Terryeo will then procede to claim (often falsely) that the criticisms in the article were either uncited, unverifiable, or original research.
 * 3) Terryeo has a habit of claiming that the other editors (especially those that were inserting critical language about Dianetics) are unqualified to write about the subject.
 * 4) Terryeo seems to be of the opinion that he is not only an expert in Dianetics, but he can also judge who is and isn't one and while paying lip-service to working with other editors.
 * 5) Terryeo frequently ignores the work of others when he decides they are incompetent.
 * 6) He will engage in personal attacks and comments. He has personally done this to me and has not offered an apology even when I have requested it, instead he claims that because other editors have attacked him, he is justified in attacking whomever he wants.
 * 7) Terryeo uses a combination of tactics to generally disrupt and prevent harmonious editing including rambling diatribes on the talkpage regarding his positions and reverting or editting out prose he dislikes in defiance of what he sees as an unjustified consensus.

For these reasons I think that this user should have his wings clipped with regards to articles relating to Scientology.

--ScienceApologist 17:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tenebrous
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I didn't know anything about Dianetics or Scientology when I started. Since then I've learned a lot about those subjects, but the amount of information contained in those subjects is the product of a lifetime's work. Experts on the matter would obviously be very useful. However, Terryeo's contributions have been anything but helpful. He deletes sourced material because it doesn't suit his POV, and his additions are invariably unsourced and highly biased. His misinterpretation of policies, even after lengthy explanation, simply defies belief. He appears to have a supreme ability to rationalize his beliefs and actions; as such there can be no useful argument with him. Anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong or misinformed. I don't like the idea of banning Terryeo, but something definitely needs to be done to correct his behavior. Tenebrous 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by BTfromLA
In his own defense on this page, Terryeo admits "I do, without a doubt, make POV edits." After months of working with Terryeo, I have very reluctantly come to the conclusion that he is unlikely to ever accept the basic principals of Wikipedia editing or to moderate his disruptive actions. As a result I believe he should be banned from editing Scientology-related articles for a minimum of one year. I think that it is unfortunate that the issue of personal attacks and incivility is listed first here: while Terryeo has been rude at times, and he's also been on the receiving end of a good deal of rudeness, incivility is not the issue that has brought this to arbitration. Terryeo has, for months, aggressively edited in an unabashedly POV and extraordinarily disruptive manner, plainly against the editorial consensus, with the result of undoing much good work on the articles and demanding that other editors, who are operating in good faith, devote what must now amount to many hundreds of hours of their time attempting to negotiate with Terryeo instead of improve the articles. "Wikilawyering" is a term I've recently learned, and if I understand it correctly, it describes one of Terryeo's central techniques, which has the effect of subverting the Wikipedia articles he's editing. Terryeo has a pattern of citing Wikipedia policy and guidelines to serve the purposes of his POV: frequently his interpretation of policy is completely incredible. He continues to engage in this behavior after many patient explanations from other editors as to the flaws in his reasoning, and even after this Request for Arbitration had been accepted. The most recent example, as I write this, resulted in Terryeo being blocked from editing for 24 hours by an administrator after he decided that the bit in the WP:RS guideline prohibiting the use of personal websites and blogs as secondary sources means that all of the references to previously published material archived at xenu.net (a site run by an individual that makes a variety of press accounts of Scientology available online) must be removed--and in several cases, he cut out the content of the articles that cited those references as well. This preposterous interpretation of policy--the idea that archived copies of articles from Time Magazine, Scientific American, The Los Angeles Times, etc. fall under the category of "personal website or blog"--and his wild, rapid, multiple cuts and editorially incoherant changes to a number of pages, while other editors unanimously asked him to stop what amounted to a rampage of vandalism, is entirely consistent wih sort of unacceptible behavior that Terryeo has engaged in without letup since December of 2005.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Obviously expecting more evidence, especially from Terryeo. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 14:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
2) No personal attacks prohibits personal attacks.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of this dispute involves edits by to Dianetics, Scientology, and related articles.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Terryeo
2) Terryeo has made personal attacks,.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's interpretation of NPOV
3) Terryeo's interpretation of NPOV, Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence contains elements of the sympathetic point of view approach which has been considered and rejected by Wikipedia policy makers.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has removed references
6) Terryeo has repeatedly removed references to sources, see Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence and Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has removed others' postings to talk pages
7) Terryeo has removed material posted by others to talk pages, see Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, 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.


 * 20:18, 15 May 2006: Terryeo blocked for 24 hours by User:InShaneee for this edit, in which he tells a new visitor to the site that wikipedia is unreliable and recommends he go elsewhere for accurate information (offering links to the official Scientology site).
 * 13:24, 25 May 2006 blocked Terryeo with an expiry time of 1 week (Repeated violation of personal attack parole )
 * 23:57, 12 July 2006 blocked Terryeo with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attack probation )
 * 20:17, September 13, 2006 blocked "208.106.20.67 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (per AE, edits were minor though)
 * 13:34, September 15, 2006 blocked "Terryeo (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (WP:NPA breach based on Special:Undelete/User:Terryeo/subpage1 now deleted WP:CSD - note, 5th block since his RfAr)
 * 1) 12 November 2006,  banned  indefinitely for making edits characterized as "flagrant harassment and intimidation." ( and )