Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (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, 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 closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Statement by COFS

Note: I learned about this request today by accident. In the community discussion we had earlier agreed that I stay out for a while, so I did not log onto WP for quite some time and had not followed any discussion. Due to ongoing work-related projects I will also not be able to attend a talk/evidence presentation before 14 20 July 2007. Sorry for that but I'll come back to participate after that date. COFS 12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Misou

This is a first statement. I had no time to read through all the discussion. Why does this need to be spread allover the place, quite userunfriendly... Anyway. My points: a) there has been no community discussion and this story here is at the wrong place. There had not even been a community to discuss anything but the usual suspects with a history of edit warring giving their two cents on a person whose religion they attack on and off Wikipedia, namely F451. In my view the arbitration procedure is being abused right now to cut off a knowledgeable Wikipedian who could contribute a lot more to Scientology-related articles if she would not have to deal with anti-cultist gangbanging again and again. b) I think that Scientologists should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, no matter where they are and what technical equipment they use to access the internet. It is ridiculous to separate out groups of people or specific individuals because of their religious affiliation.

I'll take some time to read all this stuff tomorrow and be back then. Misou 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
c) This is a discrimination issue fueled by outspoken "cult bashers" on Wikipedia. It will draw off-wiki attention if not dealt with properly. So I'd say to formulate the issue here once and for all and kick out all other crap not related to or "expanding" the issue. Covered in my "motion" (isn't that wikilawyering already?!) here. Misou 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Durova

I submit this request for arbitration per recommendation by El C at a community sanctions noticeboard thread that became too convoluted to achieve closure.[1] SheffieldSteel had proposed a community ban on COFS citing tendentious editing on Scientology topics, multiple confirmed sockpuppets including IP addresses that originate from official Church of Scientology computers, and a history of userblocks. I responded by proposing a three month topic ban, reducible to one month if COFS pledged to enter WP:ADOPT, and referred the editors to dispute resolution. The topic ban, which is provisionally in place per El C's closure, allows COFS to post to article talk pages.

A minority of editors at the CSN thread voiced strong objections to any sanction on COFS and alleged that anti-Scientology editors were attempting to skew the articles. I extended an offer to both sides of the dispute to review separate reports of policy violations. When I conducted preliminary research on this dispute I uncovered circumstantial evidence that some pro-Scientology editors may have violated WP:MEAT. That in turn led to accusations that I had acted improperly. This looks like a situation where multiple editors have acted in ways that merit examination per WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, and WP:SOCK. WP:COI is also pertinent for at least one party.

The editors at this dispute have rejected my repeated recommendations that they pursue dispute resolution so the only viable alternative is to ask the Committee to examine this matter. DurovaCharge! 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Justanother's statement, the initial lines confirm my serious WP:COI concerns. This editor's claims regarding me are mistaken: I have always had the power to block COFS if that had been my intention. Instead I expressed that COFS was on a trajectory that would likely merit future userblocks and possible sitebanning unless some remedies were undertaken. Although I clarified that repeatedly it continues to be asserted against me. I stand by my investigative and training methods and I welcome the opportunity to clear any shadow of suspicion. Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available. DurovaCharge! 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Lsi John's statement, Jehochman and I exchanged no private dialog regarding either this conflict or Scientology until I notified him of this arbitration request. He did not solicit my opinion or participation in any way. It is no secret that he is one of my admin coaching students and that I have a very high opinion of his conduct. Similarly, Lsi john's other assertions appear to me to be based on misinterpretation and conjecture. I invite the Committee to accept this case and examine all sides. DurovaCharge! 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Justanother

Looks to me like more blowing things out of proportion and misrepresentation by User:Durova. Neither COFS' edit history nor her block history warrants sanction nor does the recent editing climate in the subject articles (21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)). That is my interpretation of the result of the WP:CN discussion. Convoluted or not, if COFS' history warranted sanction, COFS would have been sanctioned. Nor is there any sockpuppet issue at all and no proven meatpuppet issue; simply a number of editors that share a proxy IP address and that was the outcome of the checkuser case. Durova stated that she would not abide by the results of the noticeboard if they did not go her way "If you refuse to volley we can serve a 3 month topic ban, and if consensus doesn't form for that I can still use my sysop tools as needed." I guess she decided that unilaterally blocking COFS would not go over so well so here we are. I called Durova on what I considered contributing to the misuse of the sanctions noticeboard. I felt that Durova was indulging her stated and restated "hobby" for this sort of stuff at the expense of the proper usage of the sanctions noticeboard and at the expense of a good-faith editor that did not and does not deserve such treatment.

I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I was going to bring up the issue of the correct use of WP:CN on WP:AN but not to go after Durova, simply to clarify the procedure. So I am not looking for anything here for myself though I would like Durova to find another subject for her "hobby". --Justanother 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also say that if this arbitration does start then I would like to see any COI issue for COFS resolved and I would also like to see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of COFS and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of COFS deleted as they were created by a highly POV editor(s) and are used by that editor(s) in what I consider bad faith to smear COFS at every opportunity. They are inconsistent with the actual situation, a number of editors sharing a proxy IP address. However, it is important to note that other WP:DR remedies have not been applied in either case (and any admin is welcome to delete the categories - hint, hint) and I do agree with Lsi john that WP:DR is being used in a backwards fashion, starting at community sanction, then to ArbCom, etc. --Justanother 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note - please note that COFS has not edited since 22 June 2007, five days before this arb request was brought (most recent edit). --Justanother 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note 2 - I also support Lsi john's withdrawal. I also prescribe copious daily slatherings of Dr. Nother's Patented Skin Thickener, "Builds thick skin from the outside in". Vaya con Dios, mi amigo. --Justanother 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

My thanks to the arbitrators and to the clerks and to all involved for their efforts. --Justanother 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Lsi john

I'm stunned. We are going backwards?!!

As a 'last step' of dispute resolution, this arbitration is WAY TOO SOON .

First sanctions failed. Now we are trying arbitration? Next is user Rfc?

This case improperly STARTED at WP:CSN.

It was moved there at the urging of Jehochman, who already had an adversarial relationship with COFS and a motive to escalate.
His response to SheffieldSteel's post at WP:COIN indicates prejudice against 'these people', and mis-states the facts:

"How about taking this to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits." Jehochman

To my knowledge there has been no user RfC, no mediation (failed or otherwise), and no evidence of trying, and failing, to resolve disputes with COFS.

COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks, related to sock puppet accusations, and were all subsequently 'unblocked'.

COFS addressed the COI question multiple times in the discussion 1 example.

COFS was agreeable to resolution here. Durova ignored it.

Regarding COFS, there is nothing for the committee to decide, as it is too soon.

  • However, Durova is mis-representing the facts to serve her wiki-sleuthing hobby. (cite1 and cite2):
  1. Someone rejected her recommendation to pursue lower DR? A review of the WP:CSN thread will show several editors wanted de-escalation. Durova unliaterally decreed only two options for COFS were possible: a) 3-month ban or b) Mentor program and ban.
  2. El C advised (not recommended): RfAr OR RfC. diff. Unless done privately, claiming that he 'recommended' arbitration is a misrepresentation.
  3. When I voiced oposition to the entire thread, Durova threatened me by suggesting that I would 'do well' to also enter a mentorship program (in the same sentence that she suggested a 3 month ban on COFS if COFS did comply).
  4. Durova also improperly suggested wrong doing on my part and accused me of offline collusion and lying.
  5. Durova rejected previous findings and declared judgement here.
  6. Durova had her mind made up about the outcome, and clearly said so here (e-comment: Put any ideology through that grinder and it produces the same sausage) and therefore there was no good-faith effort to resolve any disputed issues.
  7. SheffieldSteel did not request sanctions. diff
  • The committee may wish to look at Durova's conduct in this. She has stated that she enjoys wiki-sleuthing as a hobby, she has been unwaivering in her insistence of a community ban from the very beginning, she entertained no 'evidence' and went straight to 'verdict'.
Durova is open to having her adminship recalled. That would be far too extreme, but a break from admin boards might be in order.
  • Now that I realize Jehochman is Durova's apprentice, the tag-team-concensus between Jehochman and Durova makes more sense. They acted as prosecutor, judge and jury in concert with each other. Peace.Lsi john 16:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Anynobody He is using Quantity of reports as evidence of 'guilt' without regard to actual outcome of the reports. The same logic would make him just as guilty, given the number of AN/I reports against him.

Response to Jehochman COFS was never found to be 'operating sock puppets', it was a fishing expedition, look lower in that sockcheck where they even fished for me and were told to knock it off.

Response to Durova I am not suggesting covert operations. I am suggesting student overly zealous to please teacher.

This arbcom is related to whether COFS has a conflict of interest.

My only involvement in this situation was an attempt to ensure that the proper wiki-procedures were followed. I have no relevant information to contribute related to COFS, and no personal or direct knowledge related to any possible conflict of interest. I have no relationship with COFS or Scientology.

I trust that the committee will act properly and responsibly in this matter.

Due to personality differences leading up to this arbcom, and to avoid tainting or distracting the process in any way, I respectfully withdraw from this arbcom. Peace.Lsi john 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Smee

I agree with Durova's assessment of the situation, and judgement, above. However it is also pertinent to note that after Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, other than the actual confirmed results of the checkuser case, no other details were fully established after the case, other than unproven claims of some sort of shared ip usage or filter by the confirmed users themselves, and discussion from others on the case's talk page. I agree with Durova's assessment, and also think that in the case of User:COFS as well as the other confirmed users, it is more likely that WP:COI sockpuppeteering is going on here, as well as violations of the policies cited above by Durova, most notably WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and WP:NPA. Smee 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Statement by Anynobody

It should be understood that I am not advocating the wholesale banning of Scientologists from editing Scientology articles just because they are affiliated with it. However, when a Scientologist continually makes questionable edits despite warnings from various editors, action is clearly called for.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS was initiated because another account, CSI LA, seemed to take up an argument two separate times after COFS was blocked. The investigation ended up revealing several users with a pro-Scientology POV editing from the same IP. COFS has evidently continued to let their WP:COI get in the way, based on the recent posts to WP:COIN and WP:CN.

I see no reason why Durova's solution is unfair. COFS has been given numerous warnings and the ban would still allow posting to Scientology talk pages thus not eliminating their opinion.

The vocal group opposed to the ban include some editors who could find themselves in the same situation COFS is in if they continue editing the way they have AND this solution is implemented. I feel that it is for this reason that some have been so passionate about decrying Durova's efforts here and on WP:CN. Anynobody 04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

I think the evidence, workshop, and discussion in this case shows that a conflict of interest exists for COFS and some other editors on subjects related to Scientology. The conflict manifests by a pattern of removing cited material, edit warring, and accusations of religious bigotry/persecution toward those who do not fall in line with their POV. When asked for proof of such behavior by anti-Scientology editors to back up the allegations, none is provided but new or unrelated accusations may be given instead, and the cycle repeats. The whole time using Church of Scientology internet resources, and then later using open proxy services which hide this affiliation. This type of behavior has negative implications for the credibility of Wikipedia, as recently shown by the introduction of WikiScanner. This has also shown that such editing is not confined to the CoS only, therefore how the case is handled could be used in any future situations like this with other groups. 06:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jehochman

I am one of Durova's admin trainees. While on routine WP:COIN patrol, I noticed a complaint about User:COFS and two other editors who had allegedly whitewashed the Scientology article. COFS has been listed on WP:COIN before, and was found to have operated sockpuppets, and to have used the Church of Scientology's proxy server. That raised an obvious conflict of interest concern. Previous blocks had been issued against COFS, yet the apparent COI editing continued. That's why I suggested to User:SheffieldSteel that he bring this case to the Community Sanctions Noticeboard. [2]

I don't remember editing any Scientology-related articles, except: I mediated a dispute between anti-Scientology activist User:Hkhenson (Keith Henson) and an unrelated editor over Capture bonding. This mediation ended prematurely when Henson was incarcerated. At the time I noticed serious WP:BLP violations in the Keith Henson article, removed them, and cleaned up the article a bit.

My concerns here are the incivility and disruptions caused by the constant edit warring between the pro- and anti-Scientology factions, and the waste of time inflicted on WP:COIN volunteers who are already stretched thin. I have attempted to counsel parties on both sides that they should stop fighting, respect each other's views, and work together to create good or featured articles. I urge the committee members to take on this case and fashion whatever remedies they see fit. Jehochman Talk 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john is relatively new to Wikipedia. He has compiled a large number of edits over three months, but edit counts do not always provide the same experience as time. Indeed, one needs to see how slow moving processes resolve over months. John has much energy and promise. I think that with training, he could become a mediation specialist. I am convinced that he is acting in good faith, and may just be experiencing a bit of newcomer disorientation. I support Lsi john's request to withdraw from this arbitration, and appreciate the helpful advice that he provided to me. Jehochman Talk 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Accept. We need to determine if the claims of innocent usage of a shared proxy for the Scientology organization are legitimate or just an excuse for sock- or meatpuppeting; we also need to determine if members of an organization that vigorously defends a synoptic point of view, who edit from the same IP, should be treated as individuals or as a single user. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Charles Matthews 17:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. - SimonP 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

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

[edit] Principles

[edit] Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disclosure

4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User names

5) Username policy discourages the use of names of corporations and other organizations as user names. While the main reason for this prohibition is to discourage casual promotion of relatively unknown organizations by this means, an ancillary reason is to avoid questions of whether the user is acting in some official capacity for the organization so named.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility of organizations

6) 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 10 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple editors with a single voice

8) 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. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)

Passed 6 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] COFS (talk · contribs)

1) User COFS, through a pattern of editing and user and talk page posts, appears to be working towards a pro-Scientology point of view at the expense of NPOV.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COFS as a username

2) COFS is a common abbreviation for the Church of Scientology. As such, this user name is in violation of applicable policy. Further, there is confusion as to whether this user is acting in some official capacity on behalf of the Church of Scientology.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody

4) Anynobody has since at least March 2007 complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence, and sometimes without relevance to mainspace editing, on WP:ANI, a variety of user talkpages, WP:RFA, and other fora, some of them clearly not intended for such use.

Passed 8 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Church of Scientology-owned IPs

5) Checkuser evidence shows that multiple editors have made strongly pro-Scientology POV edits from Scientology-owned IPs, in particular ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] COFS must select a new username

2) User:COFS must choose a new user name, request reattribution of previous edits to this new name, and maintain links between the two user pages.

Passed 9 to 1 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recruiting

4) User:COFS is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics.

Passed 7 to 4 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother

5) Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother.

Passed 8 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justanother urged to avoid

6) Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. This remedy implies no judgement concerning Justanother's conduct, but is intended to ensure a balanced situation together with remedy 5, above.

Passed 8 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article probation

7) All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of prohibition on harassment

[edit] Anynobody

1) Should Anynobody violate the prohibition on harassment, they may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 8 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Notice User:Shutterbug, User:Makoshack, and User:Misou claim to be separate people editing from a shared IP address. Per Principle 8, Multiple editors with a single voice, all blocks and bans applied to any one of these editors should be applied to all [4]. Thatcher131 13:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Cirt (talk · contribs) warned for his/her part in the same edit war. No ban, because the edits were stale when I reviewed. Mangojuicetalk 07:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

* Justanother (talk · contribs) placed on the special restrictions by Ryulong pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother: DurovaCharge! 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    1. Identify all accounts you have operated or continue to operate
    2. Choose one of those accounts to edit from
    3. All other accounts are to be indefinitely blocked
    4. If other cases of sockpuppetry are found, that account is indefinitely blocked, and the primary account is to be blocked for a finite period of time
    5. Three strikes, you're banned These restrictions withdrawn by Ryulong on 28 March. GRBerry 13:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)