Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Statements by non-parties

This statement by a non-party was moved to the talk page in order to keep the case page as compact as possible.

Statement by Fahrenheit451

Initially, I found Terryeo to be very combative in character and POV in editing. He teamed with JimmyT, aka UNK, on many discussions, resulting in personal attacks on other editors for disagreements on edits. After the RfC on Terryeo and the blocking of JimmyT, I have observed that he is more open to discussion and has ceased the adhominem attacks. My concern is that because of the coercive threats of cofs justice actions against cofs members, Terryeo will find it difficult to work with non-cofs editors, as by permitting a derogatory edit could result in reports being written on him with threats of a Suppressive Person declare or a Comm Ev. I would like other interested parties here to note that the fact of subscribing to Scientology alone does not create the hostility that has been observed here, but rather being a member of the Church of Scientology. There are also Freezone Scientologists as well, who object to those cofs policies that create alienation and hostility. We have seen those faulty policies in action here. --Fahrenheit451 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has resumed his personal attacks as of yesterday. I see no evidence that he can or will abide by Wikipedia policy, as most of the CoS members sent in on Wikipedia are here to disrupt the editing process, not cooperate and contribute with fellow Wikipedians. These folks are being tasked by the Office of Special Affairs and their only alternative is to withdraw from the CoS, an action which most of them aren't ready for.--Fahrenheit451 15:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally know Jimmy T. I did not encourage him to engage in personal attacks. I do not work for the Church of Scientology in any capacity nor for any of its organizations, nor have I any ongoing communication line with any Church of Scientology organization except as a public person, taking publically available courses which anyone can take. The idea of my "permitting" certain edits would make me laugh if it weren't seriously stated. I responded to Fahrenheit451's question about my position with the Church of Scientology on BTfromLA's user page where he asked me. That he has not been similarly forthcoming does not bother me, I volenteered the information I gave him cheerfully and have stated my position before, my POV on my user page and am happy to do so. I have worked with Fahrenheit451 and looked up information for him in official church documentation (Hubbard Communcation Office Policy Letters, Official Administration Dictionarys, etc. all of which is publically sold and available and which I have purchased copies of). I am not part of any "folks" nor tasked by any Office or Organization of Scientology and am editing of my own free will and because I would like those subjects which I have knowledge of to be accurately introduced. That controversy likewise be presented is perfectly fine with me. I believe I work in Wikipedia's best interest and toward the goals of Wikipedia as stated in WP:NPOV.Terryeo 23:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it appropriate to further state that if any organization of the Church of Scientology, such as the Office of Special Affairs, is or ever has directed anyone to edit any part of Wikipedia, I have no knowledge whatsoever of it. To my knowledge I have never communicated with anyone who has ever worked for the Office of Special Affairs, the Guardian's Office, or anyone who is "deep in the bowels of the church," heh! Terryeo 23:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Timetable for judgement of this RfA?

I'm not familiar with the procedure, but it's been a couple of weeks without any evident action related to this. Could someone in the know be kind enough to fill us in on the expected timetable for judgment of this arbitration request? BTfromLA 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on 15 May block

This comment was moved here from the log of blocks and bans so as to keep it uncluttered. Please make all comments on this page.

IMHO - Was this block really justified? OK Terryeo's comment was a bit petulant but it wasn't disruptive or even inappropriate. Blocking someone for what appears to me to have been a very mild criticism of Wikipedia (how dare anyone suggest that an encyclopedia open to edit by anyone might not be 100% reliable!) and recommending someone have a look at Scientology's official site on the Scientology talk page not only goes beyond the Arbitration Committee's decision on remedies, but it savours of censorship and feeds Terryeo's persecution complex. Again, IMHO - I am not an administrator. Really Spooky 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that such criticism of Wikipedia is in no way a violation of personal attack parole. Had it come to my attention at the time, I would have asked the blocking administrator to reconsider. --Tony Sidaway 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [1]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the necessity of this, but would not say ab initio that you have abused your discretion. Terreo does fine on Wikinfo, but our expectations are quite different. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your link doesn't seem to work. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62#Terryeo blocked. The edits in question [2] and [3] link to a site that tracks the activities of Scientology critics. Thatcher131 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The block looks good to me. Charles Matthews 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)