Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey, use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Fahrenheit451

[edit] The Church of Scientology International is a corporation

The Church of Scientology International (CSI) is a corporation [2], thus is a single entity. The CSI is not a resort, hotel or motel. Several users editing from an IP address belonging to the CSI is tantamount to the CSI editing each time an edit is made from such an IP address. One such address is User:205.227.165.244 which is documented here:[3] and here:[4] The differentiation between individual users, meatpuppets and sockpuppets does not exist in this situation. Therefore, one can accurately assert that any multiple users editing from the CSI IP addresses are meatpuppets or sockpuppets.--Fahrenheit451 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal of Justanother's statements given below

There is no evidence that the CSI owns or operates any hotels or accomodation facilities. For example, the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater, Florida is owned by the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc.,[5] a corporation different from the CSI and the property record is here: [6]. The business or religion question of the CSI is irrelevant and is not being contested here. It is peculiar and curious that Justanother even brings this up. The user names of those CSI members editing from the CSI IP address are consistent, so Justanother's statement that "field staff members" have internet access in a hotel lounge is irrelevant.--Fahrenheit451 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One legal entity, one voice

On Wikipedia, one individual has one voice. A corporation is legally recognized as an individual entity. Only one user who is an employee of a corporation should be allowed to edit Wikipedia from that corporate IP address. To do otherwise gives corporations undue influence on Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Misou attacks another editor without provocation

Please see this dif here:[7]--Fahrenheit451 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Misou harasses another editor on talk page

An editor put this notice on Misou's talk page: [8] Misou then cut and pasted that notice and put it on User:RookZERO's talk page. [9] I think this is disruptive behavior. --Fahrenheit451 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Misou's Block log:[10]--Fahrenheit451 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:S. M. Sullivan tendentious editing

This user put a to-do comment in an edit of a scientology-related article. He later put the article up for deletion. The article concerns a group that the cofs is antagonistic to. [11]--Fahrenheit451 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Justanother threatens me

Justanother threatens to bring me into this arbitration that he is a party to:[12]--Fahrenheit451 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shutterbug is uncivil to a mediator

Several places in this discussion Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31_David_Miscavige, Shutterbug was uncivil without provocation.[13][14]--Fahrenheit451 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shutterbug still violating Wikipedia policy

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here;[15]--Fahrenheit451 01:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Anynobody (talk • contribs • logs)

Anyeverybody (talk • contribs • logs)

[edit] I am neutral toward the CoS*

I also have no problem with members editing here assuming the rules are followed. Since I have been accused of being biased against both the organization and editors I'll present examples of my neutrality.

(* When I refer to the Church of Scientology I mean the church, religion, etc. affiliated with Scientology including Dianetics.) [2]
Again, I have no problem with people editing who could have a WP:COI as long as it is kept in check. The subject of the case is one example of a person who could not keep their COI under control. This person also happens be editing from an official IP of the group which is the subject they have spent almost 100% of their time on Wikipedia editing. I believe there are ways to edit with a WP:COI. To maximize rather than minimize the amount of time spent editing the subject of a conflict of interest is not one of them. The inherent problem when trying to tell a person they are biased is that they may assume you are also either out to get them or "just don't understand". As a result anyone who does not agree, becomes the enemy. Even though they have done this to me, I will present evidence I've seen of it happening to others. I don't want to give the impression I am on some sort of vendetta, so I will simply show that I have tried to be nothing but, neutral, yet factual from the start with every editor I have encountered.

01:27, 24 February 2007 The beginning, I am talking to Justanother about incivility towards Scientologists and had suggested he form a WP:MOS dealing with the subject, like some other religions have. During the course of the conversation I explain the nature of the changes I had intended to make to L. Ron Hubbard regarding his time in WW II. The conversation was pleasant and I got the impression he wouldn't have issues with properly sourced material at the end of our discussion.

Anynobody 05:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Disagreement and misunderstanding

I feel compelled to explain that Bishonen and I have disagreed about an unrelated dispute resolution misunderstanding. To make a long story short, myself and a few other editors were concerned about Justanother's style of editing. Here is what followed:

  1. Listed: 03:49, 8 March 2007 I submitted the request and it was listed as Uncertified. Correct me if I'm wrong (really, if I am wrong please correct me) but were the request to have stayed in that category for 48 hours it would be delisted. The only way to avoid this is for the request to be certified.
  2. Approved: 06:50, 8 March 2007 The request was certified and moved to the approved section, meaning the 48 hour rule no longer applied.
  3. Delisted 02:42, 10 March 2007 RfC was deleted by Bishonen around 44 hours after it was certified.

Since then I have maintained Bishonen made a mistake by deleting the RfC, it had been certified and there were comments being made. Given Bishonen's friendly relationship with Justanother I suggested that she was treating him as a friend rather than an editor. I've tried several times to sort out this disagreement, but just in case what she posted about me strikes anyone as the complete account of our history I just want to illustrate that we are having difficulty working together evidently because we both seem to not understand the other. [3]

More diffs:

Difficulty discussing disagreement caused by other editor: 1, 2
Difficulty discussing disagreement with Bishonen directly: (newest to oldest) 3 late June, 2 same, 1 late March
Perhaps I was too direct: My reply to deletion
Prior to the deletion: 0a, 0b the following post seems to sum up her attitude: Bishonen(Bishzilla) and Justanother[4]

(Oh, come on.) To whom it concern: little Justanother total sweetheart. What's with bad press for monsters? ROAAARRRR!!!

– Bishzilla 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The discussion continues: my talk page. Anynobody 23:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COFS (talk • contribs • logs) is an example of how WP:COI leads to other trouble

COFS on WP:OR
COFS falsely accuses Tilman of vandalism.[5]
COFS on POV. |

COFS on WP:AGF, WP:STALK, and WP:NPOV

COFS on WP:3RR.
COFS on "attack the attacker" policy of the CoS.

If this were just one editor's behavior I wouldn't think this to be such an important issue, however COFS is not alone in this pattern on articles regarding Scientology as shown in the next section. Anynobody 05:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Accounts which share CoS servers focus on a pro-Scientology POV, and increase the amount of time neutral editors must spend to properly edit related articles

Subject Accounts

User and IP # Most Edited
Articles		 Most Edited (How Many)  % related to
Scientology
COFS 1 15 Scientology (127) 100%
CSI LA 1 8 L. Ron Hubbard (12) 100%
Misou 1 15 L. Ron Hubbard (97) 100%
Makoshack 1 15 Youth for Human Rights International (13) 100%
Su-Jada 6 10 Scientology (40) 80%
Grrrilla 6 6 Scientology (25) 100%
Averages 11 52 edits 96%

(For Reference to Compare stats between CoS IPs, regular IPs, and me)

Other Active Scientologists

User # Most Edited
Articles		 Most Edited (How Many)  % related to
Scientology
Justanother 15 Scientology (110) 73%
Bravehartbear 6 Scientology (140) 83%
Averages 10 125 edits 78%

Me

User # Most Edited
Articles		 Most Edited (How Many)  % related to
Scientology
Anynobody 15 L. Ron Hubbard (184) 33%
Anyeverybody 15 L. Ron Hubbard and the military (13) 6%
Averages 15 98 edits 19%

A note about this information;
* These figures are for (Main) namespace edits only.
See: About my interest in L. Ron Hubbard

Looking at my experience on Wikipedia, I can safely conclude that editing Scientologist articles is a major time sink due to the actions of Scientologist editors with a conflict of interest. I've literally had an easier time editing Israeli/Palestinian, Cold War, and Holocaust articles than I have L. Ron Hubbard. Anynobody 06:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Accounts shown to be sharing CoS owned IPs working together

Items that span multiple diffs included with comments.

  1. Su-Jada and COFS to get the whole story I recommend using the ← Older edit/Newer edit → links a few times.
  2. Misou and COFS after COFS reverts a sourced edit by AndroidCat.
  3. Misou and Su-Jada

Anynobody 11:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC) updated 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this data is meant to show that the accounts identified with the two IPs in question spend a majority of their time here editing Scientology articles. This is especially apparent when comparing them to other users who identify themselves as Scientologists (96% compared to 78%), or myself which has minimal interest in Scientology but maximum desire to create balanced and informative articles (19%).
I realize that statement may sound manufactured, but it is the truth and I'll explain why as briefly as possible:
I am interested in World War 2, naval history, aviation history, and military affairs in general among other subjects. The article as it was before I began editing it was inaccurate in several respects. For example it inferred that Hubbard was tracking a magnetic anomaly, when in fact his vessel lacked the equipment to do so.

In the process of correcting such mistakes, I noted a pronounced discrepancy between sources affiliated with the CoS and those from the USN and surprisingly contradictory assertions within the mentioned Church statements themselves. Some parts of the Church states/stated at various times Hubbard served in the SW Pacific on Java while at the same time commanding a fleet of corvettes to combat the U-boat scourge in other Church sources. Naval records indicate he was actually doing something else at the time, in Australia.

Since his WW 2 service was only part of his biography, I took it upon myself to read up on the rest of his life. His biography can be divided into three versions; his, neutral public/private records, and some extreme anti-Scientology sources (which don't list theirs). His version makes him out as an almost superman, the truth paints a picture far less flattering, while the extreme version is almost the antithesis of his. Since the truth denies his fantastic claims I think it is seen by the CoS as more extreme anti-Scientology sentiment. It might not have taken so many edits to fix the Hubbard article if I hadn't been so strongly opposed. # of my edits: 184 compared to 109. (Common sense would indicate that other Scientologists edited that page too, just not as often.) Anynobody 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example(s) of Scientologists harassing neutral admins and editors on each other's behalf[6]

Example 1:
Subject
A block, 23 April 2007 on Misou which lasted one week for ongoing violations of WP:CIVIL by EVula.
26 April No admins disagreed and at least one said the block was appropriate.
Background:
Justanother starts a section on User talk:EVula regarding the length of block on Misou.
EVula is willing to listen but no persuasive arguments are made. Up to this point I feel there has been nothing uncalled for done, it's natural for wikifriends to investigate the possibility another is being treated poorly.
Evidence:
The behavior which followed on Evula's talk page and the WP:ANI board was to portray EVula as a POV biased admin. Making such accusations is most uncalled for in my opinion;

CSI LA says Misou "...was set up by some other editors in brilliant tactical manner, though very much detriment to the spirit of Wikipedia..." and criticizes EVula for making their first block so harsh. Later he calls those who responded "...I see the usual anti-Scientology front drumming up even their inactive editors to keep Misou from scraping at their conscience..."

Other examples to follow if necessary, I don't want to overwhelm anyone. Anynobody 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) updated 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit marks

To make the sections easier for browsing I'm limiting myself to one signature per section, the most recent. Others are noted as references, since all actual refernces should be in the evidence itself. This simply shows other times I've edited, and roughly what was added.

  1. ^ Anynobody 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. ^ Anynobody 04:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. ^ Anynobody 00:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. ^ Anynobody 05:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. ^ I don't know how I did it, but these weren't the link (singular) I meant to include.
  6. ^ Original

[edit] Harassment

Discussion of the RFC/U aside, I truly don't understand when I harassed Justanother. Since he won't tell me, I'll have to guess so here I'll be showing what I think he is referring to. Anynobody 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1) My last post to his talk page, April 8 regarding his post to Orsinis sandbox where several editors and myself were preparing another RfC/U on Justanother. (As I said I wasn't the only one having difficulty with Justanother at the time of the first RfC)
I have seen other editors create similar pages and concluded the difference between a page like that and an attack page is that the latter is a page full of criticism which does not discuss WP:POLICY. The public nature of such a page would allow anyone mentioned time to prepare a rebuttal without being surprised out of the blue. I reaffirmed this in my post. I also didn't simply delete his post from the sandbox, I put it back on his talk page so he could use it either during the then future RfC or create his own sandbox page more easily. (Compare that to the minor inconvienance of having to to the history page and copying from there)
If this is harassment, can I suggest adding a section to WP:HARASS discussing such pages? Given what I observed and didn't find in that guideline it was my understanding that such pages were acceptable if carefully written not to be simply a gripe page. Had I known it was not, I wouldn't have been posting on the page (or let anyone I knew create one) so there would've been no post to return. Anynobody 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
2) My first post on his talk page, I'm trying to understand some of the points he made concerning WP:BLP, March 4:
Anynobody: I wanted to make sure I wasn't letting emotion get the better of me on this issue, so I slept on it before responding and as such apologize for the delay. I was frustrated at first, but now that has been replaced by curiosity which is why I've decided to go ahead and see if you can make something clear for me. Let me start by reassuring you that if I were still frustrated I would not have posted this, so please understand that this is a genuine question:
Justanother: ::Hi. First, please let me know your religion or other spiritual beliefs (or lack of), your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. so that I can cast aspersions on them (and you)...
Smee: Warns Justanother that his response looks like a PA to her
Justanother: remove Smee's inappropriate, interfering, and toublemaking false "PA warning" Why did I know that would show up here from Smee, hmmmm?
Anynobody: ...If you believe I am pushing a particular religious POV, feel free to follow my edits and see if that's the case. To be clear, I was trying to explain my motivation was not based on an agenda since his response seemed to indicate he truly thought I was out to get Scientology. Justanother I have said this before, but perhaps you didn't see it. I have no interest in making Scientology look bad. If I was a person with an anti-Scientology agenda I'd be editing a lot more articles related to Scientology besides Barbara Schwarz and the mis perception of L. Ron Hubbard's Navy career given by both Cos and anti-CoS sources. (This goes back to the discussion we had above on this very talk page.) However I am also trying to get the conversation back to the point which was trying to discuss, our understanding of how WP:BLP applies. In the past few days he gave the impression of someone who thought BLP applied only to sections of articles containg biographical information. You've also not answered my question, do you believe that BLP applies to articles and sections of articles in different ways? If you don't want to participate, would you mind if I took our example to the BLPN or other neutral source. I still want to know. Anynobody 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Smee:Inappropriate to remove Warnings from your talk page...
Anynobody:I hadn't planned on complaining about a PA but thought Justanother's deletion of Smee's warning without discussion was lacking WP:AGF at the least.
Justanother:Ignores Smee again in his response, which is basically repeating the behavior I was concerned about. (Not being attacked, but his ignoring another editor's opinion by discarding a warning.)
Justanother:Again ignores my original question (BLP applications) and theorizes about how I see him
All I wanted to do was work with him to understand WP:BLP when I posted in the first place.
If this is harassment, should I have assumed he didn't want to answer and left it at that? I was under the impression if anyone was watching they'd note the refusal to answer a straightforward question rather than thinking the questioner is harrassing the person who didn't answer. (Mind you answering could have included just saying "I don't want to..." this would have been better since I couldn't tell if he was misunderstanding me or intentionally evading a question he didn't like, in the event of the former WP:AGF would demand I proceed under that assumption). Anynobody 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note* My only activity on his talk page was between 03/04 and 04/08. The 04/08 post was as I said above meant as a courtesy, and I tried to be as civil as I could. This is partially why Bishonen's proposal on May 14th made little sense to me (since I hadn't posted for over a month I thought it was obvious that I hadn't planned on posting there unless a situation came up that warranted it). Anynobody 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
3) The quote I added to my user page on March 9th:

 ::Hi. First, please let me know your religion or other spiritual beliefs (or lack of), your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. so that I can cast aspersions on them (and you) for your misapplying the self-same policy, in addition to your fear of being caught WP:CANVASSING, and any other errors that I happen to catch you in. Talk about offensive! And all with the "goody two-shoes, I'm so pure and holier-than-thou" attitude. Makes me gag. I sure as hell could give a shit if you think I work for (redacted). Or if you think I am one rude motherfucker.

– --User:(Redacted) 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Background
I have noticed that complaints about incivility, personal attacks, and bad faith accusations are pretty common. I firmly believe that while a line exists between fair criticism and uncivil attacks, it's wide and several shades of gray. Therefore what someone could consider abuse is likely to come their way sooner or later. By showing my ability to find humor in what reads like a nasty comment I was hoping to set an example that attacks are only attacks if you (the receiver) let them be.
Issue
At the time I added it, only a few people could've known it was Justanother who said it, by adding his name to it and asking for more context on the conversation he was actually asking me to showcase some of his poorer behavior because the rest of the conversation didn't make him look any better than the quote.
Here are the facts;
  1. He and I disagreed about how to interpret WP:BLP.
  2. Since our relationship seemed normal enough to figure out the answer together I asked him for more information about his argument.
  3. He replied with that quote.
  4. The rest of the conversation was spent trying to get back to the original question I asked and defending Smee's right to have an opinion. (I think it's improper to simply delete warnings from other editors without discussing them first.)
At this point in our "history" he really had no reason I can think of to respond the way he did, unless I was harassing him by trying to solve a disagreement with him on his talk page. Regardless, it was still meant to accuse me of negativity regarding his religion and was a complete surprise to me. When Smee pointed out she thought it was a PA, it occurred to me that issues like that must happen semi-frequently since perceptions vary between people about what is or isn't a PA. After a few days of thinking about it (people dealing with statements they think are PAs but for whom nobody speaks up for), the anonimized quote seemed like a good way to show how easy it can be to shake off, while showing no animosity toward the person who said it:

I'm not trying to hold this editor up for ridicule, so I've redacted their name and one other piece of information which could identify him/her. I don't know if this person seriously expected me to just tell him/her all this information about me, but the request was amusing.

– Anynobody 11:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(I also must say I could and did think of more commentary to add to what I said, but kept the final commentary as mild as possible while still expressing no "hurt feelings". Simply putting up the quote with no explanation might have made people think I was trying to act like a martyr or something. Moreover, I hate to play the "but he did it too..." card, however since he has I'm wondering where the lines between harassment, wiki ed, and "fun" lie. So understand I'm not asking for intervention when I point out: User:JustaHulk was also created from the same conversation, given the meltdown he showed with the quote it had first struck me as a Jekyl/Hyde personality but I said the hulk hoping to be less offensive since the former is a monster and the latter a superhero. This happened later in the "quote" conversation).
The bottom line on putting that quote on my talk page, if I had been out to make him look bad I would not have redacted his name and the Scientology mention. I don't know if he forgot the rest of the conversation when he was asking for me to include more onmy user page, or if he was gaming the system because to an uninvolved person it's easy to make the situation sound like I'm trying to keep some great quote of his from seeing the light of day. Even though that wasn't the case. Anynobody 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Justanother (talk • contribs • logs)

Note: I will be removing and refactoring my evidence section as I see fit to limit it to limit my presentation to evidence that is relevant to the subject(s) of this arbitration as I understand them. I will not use my evidence section to attack or counter-attack other editors unless the actions of that editor are part of this arbitiration. Otherwise I will limit such disussion to the talk page. I would also hope that I can set an example by doing this. --Justanother 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology is a religion and the Church of Scientology is a church

Although critics like to pretend elsewise, that is the fact. Scientology is routinely defended as a religion by the United States Department of State [16], the European Court of Human Rights, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee when it comes to the religious discrimination practiced by nations such as Germany (which discriminates against many non-Christian religions). So the Church should not be treated as, say, IBM, when it comes to conflict of interest. How it should be treated is a valid topic for this panel but we should not start off with the premise that the Church of Scientology is just another corporation. It, like most churches, has a corporate structure, but the similarity ends there. This ties into my next point.

[edit] We cannot make assumptions of "who" is editing from a Church IP without evidence

We just cannot. For example; contrary to a previous assertion, the Church actually does operate hotels, a number of them in fact. I just called the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, FL at (727) 461-1282 (found via switchboard.com). I called the Church of Scientology (Flag Service Organization) and asked for the hotel front desk and told the girl that answered that I was thinking of visiting and I was curious if they had a business center with internet access. She said "yes, we have one at the Sandcastle" (a nearby Church facility for delivering advanced materials). I see no reason to believe that a computer in a Church-owned business center, especially in an advanced Church branch facility like the Sandcastle, would not use the Church gateway (proxy). Also, like any church, parishioners routinely help out with various tasks on a volunteer basis and may have access to church computers. There are also what is called an "FSM lounge" in most large Churches (in the Churches proper, not in a hotel) and there may be internet access there; FSMs are regular Scientologists that minister to other people and try to interest them in Scientology. These lounges may have internet access in order to conduct business by e-mail. I am not sure on those two points but I do know this; the children of both regular Scientologists and staff members will usually sit at any unoccupied computer and start using it in the Church that I am intimately familiar with. This is all to show that we are not dealing with a business here, we are dealing with a church. We cannot make any assumptions as to who is sitting at the computer that shares a proxy address with hundreds of Church computers woldwide. This is an issue of assuming good faith, a fundamental principle here, one that is much more fundamental than conflict of interest. WP:AGF trumps WP:COI, IMO, in this case, and generic "solutions" are problematic; it is better to consider this specific IP proxy issue on a case-by-case basis, examining the individual editor and his edits.

[edit] Justanother takes the stand

/places his right hand on the Dianetics book and swears to tell the truth, etc.

I just wanted to enter into evidence that I am not maintaining that there is no COI issue to be discussed here. I have stated elsewhere that I have, from way back in May after the WP:RFCU, suggested that COFS and the other subject editors clarify how and where they may edit (here is just one of my many mentions that there are issues to be clarified). I am NOT here in some "Us vs. Them" capacity. I am not here in a COI situation of my own. I have truth, justice, and the Wikipedian way as my sole motivations. While I may respond sharply to, IMO, unwarranted and off-topic attacks on myself, I am completely ready to work with others on all sides of the issue in a spirit of co-operation to bring this to a fair and proper conclusion. --Justanother 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI at Barbara Schwarz

A number of Wikipedia editors have carried an off-Wiki (Usenet) feud to this project. For now, I am only referring to User:Vivaldi and User:Tilman who have brought their Usenet feud against Barbara Schwarz to this project. Over the next few days, I will be presenting evidence of their off-Wiki feud and diffs of inappropriate comments about or directed at Schwarz from the article, the talk page, the AfD's, or anywhere else. For now and just to establish that there is an issue:

[edit] Usenet feud

I do not see any need to lay out the particulars of their off-Wiki feud or the claims and counter-claims or the names they call each other. Suffice it to say that if you Google Usenet for "Schwarz" AND "Tilman" you get over 7000 hits. Check Tilman's posting account for instances of "Schwarz" and you get 312 posts. If you Google Usenet for "Schwarz" AND "Vivaldi" you get over 3000 hits. I will not say more there because I don't want to discuss Vivaldi's real life identity. I think that we can take it as given that Vivaldi and Schwarz have off-Wiki animosity and leave it at that.

[edit] Tilman

  • 10:36, 16 February 2007, diff, Tilman posts a raft of unsourced derogatory claims about Schwarz to the talk page, such material as "put into a german mental institutions", "put into american mental institutions", and "arrested for stealing nectarines" - clear WP:BLP violations. He added to it here, I removed it here, and Tilman was unrepentant here.

[edit] Vivaldi

  • 00:23, 19 July 2007, diff, Vivaldi all but states that Schwarz is "verifiably insane", a claim not supported by the article and which can only be assumed to be his opinion of her: "When the famous person in question is verifiably insane . . ." I removed it here as a WP:BLP violation and asked him to refrain from such here. He was unrepentant here.

[edit] Evidence presented by Jehochman

[edit] Evidence of COI by COFS

1. COFS is an abbrevation for Church of Scientology. When COFS edits Scientology articles, other editors immediately suspect a conflict of interest. [17] and [18]. User:SheffieldSteel made this assumption prior to filing the initial complaint at WP:COIN, which led directly to this arbitration.

2. The confirmed sock CSI LA account's username apparently stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. This has also drawn suspicion from other users. [19]

3. With this edit the editor voluntarily revealed IP address 205.227.165.244 which belongs to the Church of Scientology. Notice how the word choice of this edit is nearly identical to at least three other edits by COFS. [20] [21] [22]

Updated - Jehochman Talk 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing edit wars involving COFS, Misou, RookZERO and others

There was recently an edit war at Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia involving parties to this case. Administrator User:Riana stepped in and protected the page to stop it.

COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • COFS on July 16 found time to defend pro-Scientology POV pushing with this revert, even though he was unavailable to participate in this arbitration. "Implicit in this is the corollary conclusion that Scientology is a bona fide religion." Huh, implicit?
  • The above edit also violated the topic ban imposed at WP:CSN, as did this other edit.

Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • RookZERO has engaged in edit warring with Misou. Here he calls Misou's edit "cult vandalism."
  • Here is another revert by RookZERO, and you can look at the history of July 17-19, 2007 to see more.
  • RookZERO defends his POV pushing by reverting an edit I made to Scientology.
  • RookZERO adds an inappropriate external link to a discussion forum. [23]

Su-Jada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • Su-Jada also helps carry on the same POV pushing revert as COFS and Misou. Su-Jada takes a pot shot at User: Stan En in the edit summary: "don't engage in vandalism".

Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • Moe Epsilon is also edit warring along side COFS, Misou and Su-Jada with this edit.

Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • Makoshack previously adds external links to Scientology propaganda (press releases on Scientology controlled site). This edit isn't the same as all the others.

Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • F451 pushed POV by restoring an improper external link. [24]

Submitted by Jehochman Talk 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Fubar Obfusco

[edit] The Church of Scientology has a history of abusing online media

In its efforts to silence critics and to prevent the publication of unpleasant revelations about its practices, the Church of Scientology has frequently harassed critics, ex-members, and other private citizens. At times this harassment has included serious criminal acts, as in the case of Operation Freakout against journalist Paulette Cooper.

Since the mid-1990s, targets of Scientology harassment have included online forums and the users thereof. The history of this abuse is documented in a number of well-sourced Wikipedia articles, including Scientology versus the Internet. Scientology's acts include suing ISPs over their users' conduct; spamming Usenet newsgroups with falsified articles posted under critics' names; "spamdexing" or search-engine spamming; and harassing the maintainers of Web sites that discuss criminal acts perpetrated by and for the Church.

The conduct of Wikipedia users who identify themselves as representatives of the Church of Scientology needs to be understood in the light of this history. While they as individuals are not responsible for past abuses, their actions may form part of a larger pattern of organizational behavior.

[edit] Evidence presented by Durova

[edit] WP:COI and Scientology

Justanother contends that Scientology is a religion and that, as such, WP:COI is not necessarily involved when edits to Scientology articles originate from its organizational computers. Implicit in this argument is a thesis that the applicability of WP:COI is linked to individual editors' opinions of whether Scientology is or is not a religion. This is a faulty premise. As I have expressed prior to arbitration I extend the same inherent dignity to Scientology that I extend to any religion.

Owing to what Justanother acknolwedges is this religion's controversial status, the Church of Scientology and its adherents have particular reason to avoid the appearance of impropriety when they participate at Wikipedia because, per this essay, actions at this site are extremely durable and public. As Wikipedians we assume good faith and do our best to help fellow editors adjust to site standards, yet as this currrent example demonstrates, the mainstream press is not constrained by the same principle. Wikipedia's prominence on the Internet tends to make such stories snowball in ways that cause substandial embarrassment to the individuals and organizations who edit rashly.

One of the challenges of my type of volunteer work is the difficulty of communicating this danger to users who are engaged in promotional activity. Justanother contends that anti-Scientologists have been skewing this site's coverage of the subject (and I reserve my opinion on whether this has actually happened pending evidence to that effect), yet that editor fails to see how untoward conduct by Scientologists provides grist for the mill of any savvy anti-Scientologist who lurks the site: everything that happens here is publicly logged under GDFL licensure, and as such may be reproduced by any book author, documentary producer, etc. who may wish to denigrate that organization. Out of respect for the Church of Scientology I suggested that this arbitration might take place privately.[25] Yet in this case, as sometimes happens, the editors I sought to help operated from a paradigm that pigeonholed me as an opponent and disregarded sincere suggestions.

It would do the Church of Scientology no service to carve an exception to WP:COI on the basis Justanother proposes. Conflict of interest can apply to any organization, not just profit-making businesses, and the canonical example of COI IP editing was governmental. Remedies at Wikipedia are intended to be preventative and I stand by my opinion that a limited topic ban with formal mentorship was a reasonable solution in this case. The Church of Scientology is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I hope its representatives familiarize themselves with what those standards actually are. DurovaCharge! 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justanother, WP:COI, and WP:AGF

Justanother's evidence stresses the following precept: "This is an issue of assuming good faith, a fundamental principle here, one that is much more fundamental than conflict of interest. WP:AGF trumps WP:COI."

Yet the opposite principle has guided this editor's own conduct. A few representative examples demonstrate the pattern. On 12 May 2007 Justanother asserted the following at the conflict of interest noticeboard without any substantiating evidence: "The Scientology series is rife with conflict-of-interest; most of it by off-wiki critics of Scientology that act in concert here." On 21 June this editor made even stronger claims at WP:CN, again without any evidence at all. "Then I would say as well say that off-wiki critics of Scientology (those that picket Scientology churches and/or maintain or heavily contribute to anti-Scientology websites, etc.) should equally not inflame the discussion by editing in those pages." When SheffieldSteel averred impartiality, then reasoned the point, Justanother insisted that SheffieldSteel "deserved some degree of attack," not on factual grounds but as retaliation for SheffieldSteel's choice of venue. Then on the eve of arbitration Justanother spoke of Wikipedia's workings, "there is little internal recourse if you think the very small controlling group at the top is evil." Who does Justanother mean to call evil: me? ArbCom? Jimbo? It looks like this editor fundamentally misunderstands both WP:AGF and WP:NOT#Not a battlefield. I have repeatedly offered to examine evidence that the editors Justanother characterizes as anti-Scientology have violated WP:COI or site policies, but so far even at arbitration Justanother has declined to provide it.

Justanother sets the bar very high for WP:AGF at this case. Unless this editor exceeds that standard to support his or her own accusations I urge the Committee to conclude that these are not claims of principle but of convenience, summoned or discarded as the immediate needs of tu quoque or proof by assertion dictate by someone whose most consistent trait is tendentious defense of Scientology. DurovaCharge! 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burden of evidence

When handling this case I've treated the following as presumptively valid:

Lsi john and Justanother have had extensive discussions with me about that. Essentially they propose an interpretation of WP:AGF that shifts the burden of evidence onto editors who would defend the validity of the block history and checkuser. Then they advance several arguments toward a conclusion that COFS has no sockpuppets or meatpuppets, has no WP:COI, and has only two valid user blocks for WP:3RR. If their reasoning is meritorious then the community topic ban discussion was very inappropriate.

The three of us have been unable to agree. If the Committee holds some or all of their points to be valid then that will set a precedent for similar cases. The other named parties are welcome to present their reasons; they could express them better than I can. Here is my assessment:

Although the Committee may overturn a checkuser result or an editor who has checkuser privileges might change a finding, the most I could do is forward new evidence to their attention. The people who have checkuser privileges have not altered the result so I trust that the result remains valid.

Since I accept the checkuser I also accept its conclusion that COFS has edited Wikipedia through Church of Scientology computers. To my understanding this represents clear WP:COI and it makes no difference whether CoS is a religion or a business or whether COFS is an employee or a volunteer: a person who uses official computer equipment appears to speak for that organization. Additional evidence might sway this part of my analysis if, for example, the CoS IT department were to confirm that it operates large computer labs open to general CoS membership. In that case this could be comparable to educational IP addresses where the organization has little control over user actions. Burden of evidence must rest with COFS and his or her supporters for this because a person who edits Wikipedia in a problematic manner creates a public appearance of impropriety - my bottom line understanding of COI is how would this look in a newspaper?

Justanother and Lsi john have parsed the block log upon the presumption that every block which was shortened is fundamentally invalid. I wouldn't carry that reasoning as far as they do. Although three of COFS's five blocks did get reduced, none were overturned on appeal and the indef block reduction of May 3 kept COFS blocked until May 10. It is not uncommon for a sysop to try good faith unblocks where real problems exist. Here are three recent examples where I was involved. All of those are touch-and-go situations: I hope things work out but I haven't endorsed the editors' conduct and they could easily get banned again. I think the burden rests with COFS and that editor's defenders to supply evidence that distinguishes this situation from those. DurovaCharge! 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of impropriety

Justanother's evidence asks the Committee to extend good faith and assume that COFS and other Scientology-sympathetic editors have not crossed the line regarding conflict of interest or collusion. Yet on 11 October 2006 Justanother began a section entitled "An open letter to Scientology PR people" on his own user page. This includes the lines I stress the importance of wikipedia and invite more Scientologists to edit here in a spirit of cooperation and This is a big job and the more people working on it, the better. It goes on to analyze Wikipedia's prominence in Google search results and to speculate that this site's coverage of Scientology has been skewed by anti-Scientology activists.[26] Justanother edited this twice more in October[27][28], again in December[29][30], and in February 2007[31][32][33][34] before blanking the page on June 4, 2007.[35] During this period Justanother created several subordinate pages in userspace toward an aim of recruiting and coaching Scientologists to edit Wikipedia.

From User:Justanother/writeup:

Official PR people should ensure that supporting docs are posted on Scn sites for non-controvesial(sic) issues. Supporting docs related to controversial issues must be posted or reported elsewhere also, like something supporting the efficacy of Narconon should be on a .edu or .gov or in the press.
Use your access to Scn materials to provide sources; you can use LRH tapes and any published material as sources along with mags like Advance or Source

Related pages in Justanother's user space include the following:

  • User:Justanother/writeup/outline
  • User:Justanother/Welcome_message
  • User:Justanother/File1

I also located a specific instance where this person posted to a different website and self-identified as Wikipedia's editor Justanother while attempting to recruit a fellow Scientologist to edit Scientology articles on Wikipedia. From Scienowiki:

Regarding wikipedia, your help is welcome as it is kinda an uphill fight for me and a very few others. I imagine that you have tried before over there but you are welcome back! --Justanother 03:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC) [36]

Some of Justanother's advice and descriptions may be reasonably Wikipedian, yet there can be no doubt that this editor embarked upon a public relations campaign at Wikipedia on behalf of Scientology. To the best of my knowledge this editor did so as a private individual, not under any formal aegis. Justanother has pursued this strategy in preference to normal channels such as third opinion or mediation. Justanother's first use of any dispute resolution option was a 21 February 2007 post to a request for comment.[37] By that time Justanother had indexed links on his userpage to three different Wikipedia attack sites.[38]

Justanother's approach to conflict has remained consistent over time, raising aggressive procedural objections to formal actions. A few examples follow:

Also of interest is an exchange between Justanother and Lsi john that was ongoing during the WP:CSN thread about COFS. This unusual conversation was hidden from general readership because it took place beneath a redirect script at Justanother's user page. Due to multiple blankings and overwrites it can only be read via page diffs. It begins on 7 June 2007.[39][40][41] This can be our secret chat room.[42] bwahahahahahahaha.[43][44]How does a person become a pirate?[45] First you become an admin.[46][47][48][49][50][51] Welcome to the Wikipedia Pirates Club secret clubhouse![52][53][54][55]

Some of Justanother's assertions are impossible to reconcile. Compare the following:

Posted to four different talk pages as self-description: "I am an ex-Scientologist and though I am not great supporter of the CoS, I recognize a slant when I see one."[56][57][58][59]
Subsequently posted to User:Justanother/writeup/outline#Welcome as self-description: I am a Scientologist in good standing with the Church of Scientology and have been a Scientologist for over 30 years.

For these reasons I do not trust Justanother's assertions. I leave it to the Committee to determine the significance of these findings. DurovaCharge! 06:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehochman

At the workshop page for this case Justanother suggests Jehochman acted improperly at WP:CSN. He's referred to as my apprentice in the following diff.[60] It is true that Jehochman is one of my admin coaching students. He and I did not discuss this matter offsite until I had already opened a request for arbitration. We happened to post to the same threads because our editing interests are similar.

Other aspersions have been cast against him in relation to this case:

  • Jehochman, two reverts, 10 hours apart in the past 25 hours, hardly constitutes edit warring. Shame on you for posting evidence of not-warring and suggest that it implies warring.[61]
  • A redacted comment with an interesting edit note.[62]
  • 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.[63]
  • Jehochman clearly doesn't like those people (Scientologists)...It makes perfect sense that Jehochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack.[64]

Actually my own evaluations were consistently milder than Jehochman's. At WP:COIN he requested a userblock on COFS[65] when I hoped warnings would be sufficient.[66] At that thread Jehochman demonstrated willingness to accept feedback and downgrade his warnings as recognition not of my feedback but of Justanother.[67][68][69] When COFS became the subject of a second COIN listing in June Jehochman suggested a community ban on the editor.[70] Yet when I saw the proposal on 18 June I considered a siteban premature and downgraded the discussion to a three month topic ban.[71] When I returned to the thread three days later I compromised again and proposed a 1 month topic ban with formal mentorship.[72] Another example where our evaluations differed happened yesterday. I suggested he strikethrough an evidence post because the topic seemed minor and he used a stronger term than I thought was merited.[73]

It does impress me to see an editor respond well to feedback, although I'm less likely to be impressed by the need for it, but what I really like to see is how Jehochman accepted the validity of a comment from Justanother. That shows his willingness to consider an argument on its merits rather than upon his estimate of the person who made it and it is one of many reasons I think he'll make a fine administrator someday. Regarding his neutrality, Jehochman has a longstanding commitment to COIN and topics that relate to it. He was a major contributor to the now-featured search engine optimization article and started the Wikipedia:Search engine optimization essay. His handling of this matter is consistent with the way he addresses other WP:COI issues (which is how this came to his attention and what he interprets this to be). If he has any bias for or against Scientology, I am unaware of it. I consider the accusations against him to be bad faith, uncivil, and counterfactual. Jehochman has reacted with admirable patience.

Jehochman did not ask me to make any statement on his behalf, nor did I inform him that I was preparing this. DurovaCharge! 12:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Jpgordon

[edit] Checkuser evidence shows common use of multiple IP addresses, some open proxies, some CoS owned IPs

Coincident IP usage of selected Scientology-related editors.

Account IP 1 IP 2 IP 3 IP 4 IP 5 IP6
COFS x x - - - -
CSI LA x x - - - -
Misou x x x x x -
Makoshack x x - - - -
Unnamed editor 1 - - x x - -
Unnamed editor 2 - - x x - -
Grrrilla - - - x x x
Su-Jada - - - - - x

IPs:

  1. ws.churchofscientology.org.
  2. hostnoc.net IP in PA
  3. IP in Munich
  4. IP in Berlin
  5. different IP in Munich
  6. ns1.scientology.org
  • The "unnamed editors" could well just be coincidence on open or dynamic IPs; they have no Scientology-related edits, as far as I can tell.
  • IPs 3, 4, and 5 appear to be open proxies or something similar, using http://www.your-freedom.net/
  • On #1, a couple of other names never actually edited, but are obviously Scientology-related. On #2, there are several other editors; one has not edited but has a Scientology-related name; and three of whom have no related edits at all (neither has more than a couple of dozen edits.) IPs 3, 4, and 5 have lots of unrelated editors. #6 has no other named editors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just figured out that IP #2 is also part of your-freedom.net (rather than a Scientology node), hence the unrelated editors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by COFS

Cross-posted from my talkpage by the Clerk. Newyorkbrad 13:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hallo, I accidentally learned about an ongoing arbitration about myself which supposedly started weeks ago. I am not able to go online regularly before 14 July 07 nor to deal with this issue with appropriate attention. I however will submit a statement and evidence about the issue and related evidence after the above date. Thanks. COFS 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by User:AndroidCat

[edit] Institutional filtering software

Watch the reference link change from "http://www.xenu.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html" to "http://www._vetted_.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html".[74] Strange, and not the sort of reference defacement a human editor would do, but more like some sort of keyword filtering software. It's not the first time that this has happened. I noticed the same thing in at least one edit by User:Nuview a year ago, who also used a CofS IP address. (Couldn't dig up a link for it, sorry.) I mentioned it in the talk page, but didn't get a response.[75] As I pointed out, this sort of damage to articles can be hard to spot.

[edit] Misrepresentation of sources

In two articles COFS badly misrepresented a reference.[76][77].

[edit] Evidence presented by Bishonen

[edit] The conflict between Anynobody and Justanother

I'm uncertain whether the Committee will consider instituting remedies to deal with the long-standing conflict between Anynobody and Justanother, but in the hope that they will, I have collected some diffs. I see Anynobody as the driving force in the conflict, but—full disclosure—perhaps I'm prejudiced by his jabs at myself, which can be glimpsed in some of the material below. I think not, though, since I'm not so placed that they bother me. In any case, symmetric remedies—making both editors leave each other alone on talkpages and other fora—which do no single out or shame Anynobody, would IMO work well and would be no skin off Justanother's nose, as he seems to simply want the whole thing to stop.[78]

Back in March 2007, Anynobody indulged in an intense, obsessive-seeming crusade to Get Justanother—to get him pilloried, it appeared, rather than formally sanctioned. I never knew exactly why, but it seemed to be driven by Anynobody's unfamiliarity with the non-vengeance culture of Wikipedia: he seemed unable to accept, or believe, that he wasn't going to get to punish Justanother. I'd had occasion to admonish Justanother several times myself (striking example in February 2007 here) but in my later contacts with him, he has shown himself ready to change, and to try repeatedly to make peace with his arch-opponents Smee and Anynobody. Anynobody, by contrast, appears today as still proud of his actions in March-April, still bitterly determined to punish and humiliate Justanother, and still ensconced in righteousness. That is the reason I'm bringing up this conflict here. If Anynobody took any kind of distance to his inappropriate newbie actions, they would obviously not be of interest to the Committee. My timeline with diffs follows below. I haven't been watching Anynobody recently, or at all other than in the context of his RfA, so important examples or counterexamples may be missing.

  • 6 March 2007. Smee and eventually also Anynobody ask my help with "formatting" an RfC on Justanother, an editor I had several times admonished for poor behavior. A long dialogue on my page ensues, where I try energetically to babysit their RfC so it won't get deleted under the 48-hour rule. But I find Anynobody determined to prefer his own opinion over my advice, and in the end I delete the still uncertified RfC. Ever since, Anynobody has claimed as Justanother's major atrocity that he had "his friend" Bishonen delete the RfC.[79]; "If I had an admin friend, I would never ask him/her to violate the processes here"..."Hypothetically all we'd have to do is get friendly with an admin to not have to worry about RfCs."[80] [81] This is incorrect (apart from the I hope obvious issue of my integrity), as Justanother did not ask me to delete it, on or off wiki. Nor did I at that time have any friendly or approving feelings towards him, though now I do, and consider him an honest and put-upon editor. Many experienced users have pointed out the normal, standard character of the deletion to Anynobody, making apparently no impression, as his latest return to this ancient grudge was made merely days ago.[82].
  • 11 March 2007. ANI thread where Anynobody protests about the deletion of his RfC on Justanother. In his interpretation, the RfC had been "approved" by an "uninvolved" admin (User:Daniel.Bryant). Demonstration that Daniel's move of the RfC from "candidate" to "approved" was purely procedural is here. Even Anynobody's co-collector of material for the next RfC on Justanother, Orsini, tells him the deletion was proper,[83][84] but fails to deflect him.
  • 28 March 2007. Anynobody requests adminship. The nomination appears to be something of a disguised attack page on Justanother, per its contents and this post. The final version of the RfA is unfortunately confusing, as Anynobody still talks as if the people he's attacking are anonymous, whereas he has in fact by then added their names. But I hope the reader can muddle through. Note Sarah's trenchant Oppose argument and her following dialogue with Anynobody.[85], [86] [87] And note the quarrel on the talkpage. The RfA is closed by a bureaucrat per WP:SNOW, while Anynobody tries to keep it open,[88] [89] [90] reinforcing the suggestion that one of his aims is to have a high-visibility place to set out his complaints against Justanother.
  • 30 March 2007. Justanother creates an ANI thread' about Anynobody's refusal to remove a quote from Justanother (which has the appearance of being deliberately misunderstood by Anynobody) from his own userpage. Anynobody remains convinced that "teaching Justanother a lesson" is a proper and virtuous project and is incredulous that the admins won't encourage it: "I must once again express that just because Justanother is embarrassed about his statement should not be a reason to suppress it...The fact is I'm trying to show how it's possible to maintain composure when somebody responds with a blatant WP:PA. ...Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings... Rather than lower myself to his level I continued the discussion in a civil manner... Up until this point I've WP:AGF and assumed that everyone here has taken time to read up on the history here, but I'm starting to think perhaps nobody has." He refuses to remove the comment in the face of strong admin criticism (Sarah: "It is blatant trolling and baiting. Anynobody should simply remove the comments from his/her userpage and stop using Wikipedia for his/her own personal entertainment and game playing.") Ben Avelling eventually removes it.
  • 1 April 2007. Anynobody applies for Wikipedia:Editor review, creating a supposedly-not-about-Justanother Justanother attack page, now deleted. It is discussed in this ANI thread, posted by Justanother. Tom Harrison deletes the editor review as an attack page, rousing Anynobody to this protest. I have undeleted it temporarily, so anybody can consult the relevant historical version here. (Anynobody recently overwrote it with a new review of the same name, so the top revisions aren't relevant here).
  • 18 June 2007. Anynobody initiates an ANI thread, ostensibly to ask a general question about his projected next RfC on Justanother. However, the admins who comment find Anynobody's question to be a bad-faith excuse for complaining about Justanother. The sandbox RfC, kept in Orsini's space, is deleted by El C with the comment "you do not get to prepare for an RfC for months, on-wiki"[91]. I have temporarily undeleted it so people can take a look.
  • 13 July 2007. Here is a recent dialogue between Justanother and Anynobody on the latter's talkpage. I'm sorry for the length of that discussion, but it's very illuminating of the practices of both editors, and of their interaction. (Including Justanother's ill-judged intervention in the Anynobody-Anyeverybody "spoofing" issue, see below.) Note where Anynobody returns to his by now ancient original grudge of the deletion of the RfC on Justanother: "requesting the deletion of the RfC was a mistake."

Summary. Anynobody plays games. Perhaps not consciously, I have no opinion about that, but in a way that must make life on the wiki hard for any target of his. He is very focused on Justanother as a target. I was somewhat appalled to see how many of his user talk page messages—to any user, on any subject—mention Justanother, centrally or in passing, relevantly or not; apparently every subject reminds him of Justanother. I recommend the Committee to sort Anynobody's contributions by "user talk" and dip into them at random, the way I did. He has turned his own Request for adminship and his own Editor review into attack pages on Justanother. Anynobody starts most every argument with an assurance of his own honesty and good intentions: "Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings..."[92] "I don't mean for this to be taken as spiteful,"[93] "Please understand that what I am about to say is not meant as a bait,"[94] but often goes on to argue by misunderstanding which appears purposeful,[95] [96] and by counterquestions which seem to me to qualify as pestering: "what do you believe was misleading about the events as I described them?" "could you explain why it's coming off as an attack?"[97], "I was unable to locate anywhere in the policies and guidelines where it says... Would you please link me to where it says that?"[98] These mannerisms are exhausting. After originally much answering of Anynobody's questions and much assumption of good faith,[99] [100]), I admit to having become pretty short with him.[101] [102] I can afford to, as I don't feel at the mercy of his games. Justanother is. However, these two editors don't edit the same articles, so the situation is surely not unfixable. I ask the Committee to extend some protection to Justanother, from what looks like an obsessive preoccupation on Anynobody's part, and from being driven off the site by attrition. Justanother's own demeanor has been far from perfect, and it's especially regrettable that he found it necessary to take issue with Anynobody's userpage "spoofing"[103]—whether Justanother was right about that or not, he was utterly the wrong person to do it, especially in the midst of asking Anynobody to leave him alone. Justanother has a temper and acts impulsively. But he's a scientologist, and a serious editor; the combination is rare, and benefits Wikipedia.

Respected admins and experienced users such as Tom Harrison,[104] [105] [106] Geogre, [107] [108] Jossi [109] [110] Sarah,[111] [112] Yomangani,[113] and Newyorkbrad[114] have exhorted Anynobody, implicitly or out loud, to stop trolling Justanother. You will find some responses by Anynobody in the links after each name; he does not take the criticism on board, but insists and interrogates. I've literally never seen Anynobody change his mind or abandon a course of action merely because he was urged to. I may have missed something, and if there are examples of him doing that, I'd be very pleased to see them. But what I have experienced as Anynobody's imperviousness to advice and appeal is one reason I feel an ArbCom remedy, with teeth, is the only way to get him to stay away from Justanother on talkpages, on ANI, and on any other forum ingenuity can devise. This imperviousness distinguishes the conflict from the Justanother-Smee, and the Lsi John-Smee, running battles, which I think are not beyond the participants themselves to resolve, perhaps with the help of mediation. With Anynobody, the gentler ways have been tried ad nauseam. I've tried twice myself: on 8 April, I gave this warning against provocation and trolling, and on 14 May, I tried to stitch up a voluntary agreement between Justanother and Anynobody to leave each other alone (also involving Smee and Lsi John, but more marginally). My suggestions, which I "spammed" identically to the four people, were basically accepted by the other three,[115] [116] [117] but rejected by Anynobody.[118] Teeth, please!

Bishonen | talk 18:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

P. S. This just in: 22 July 2007, dialogue on Anynobody's talkpage. Yomangani mildly asks Anynobody to please not continute to post on my page after I asked him not to, which Anynobody calls a "warning". He treats Yomangani to the type of pestering counterquestions I cite in my summary above: "I also find your warning strange since it doesn't seem to say anywhere that one user can ask another not to post on their talk page. If I'm wrong, show me the rule that says so", This is followed by accusing Yomangani of trolling (not that Anynobody says Yomangani is trolling, but "more sensitive editors" might... Bishonen | talk 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

Note: due to a password problem, User:Anynobody is at the moment editing as User:Anyeverybody, which makes it a little complex to access all his contributions. Here are the links: Anyeverybody (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs). The name switch happened on June 19. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Evidence presented by user:Stan En

[edit] example of extreme POV pushing by Misou,COFS and Su Jada

In June editors were not engaged in editwar for some time. This resulted in long discussions and COFS, Misou , Su Jada were making every edit-change because they reverted any change from neutral or critical editors. They did work without any consensus while other editors tried to work it out on talk page. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 About 10 editors disagreed with their edits.

At the end they changed the intro to THIS(due to numerous smaller edits) wich they protected by edit warring for days. No critical link was left. No secondary link at all was left The whole lead was based on 10 primary links of Scientology with advertisement. The lead did obciously not reflect the body content anymore but only represented Scientology PR ! They were acknowledged of WP:LEAD , WP:NPOV but they did not agree.

After consensus was reached on talk page without this 3 editors the lead was changed again, against their will(not without discussing with them). But to change their edits which I consider as highly POV is even more hard due to absolute protection of LSI JOHN and Justanother wich everytime jump in to protect them whenever consequences dire (like now) for this "problematic editors". I did not experience LSI john and Justanother as disruptive or problematic editors but are irritated by their onesided actions.

I presented this because I experienced that this users are creating facts due to edit warring while other editors are discussing and it seems now to be only possible to protect the article from changes made without consensus due to edit warring by other editors(including me) to avoid such results in the article which I consider as highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. But it is a very unpleasent condition wich stresses every editor and should change. -- Stan talk 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks and uncivility by Misou without any provocation

This was my first edit in scientology I did not know Misou before nor met him in de.wikipedia.org. After this and 3 following edits which were instantly called vandalism by COFS and Misou I went to the talk page for discussion. And made an additional comment here. Without any personal provocation Misou then made this attack 1 and continued later on with uncivil behaviourlike here or misrepresenting my comments like here or here.

Misou and COFS gave usually inappropriate comments while editing or reverting: 1 , 2

This might show why I consider him as a problematic editor, especially because I was discussing exerything with him even he treated me quite bad.

Hope I could demonstrate how Misou usually commented on editors and not their contributions which makes it very difficult to work with him. -- Stan talk 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your-freedom.net proxy rises the burden on COFS and its "socks"

Your-freedom.net is not an affiliated organisation of Scientology. Your-freedom.net provides a proxy service to bypass installed filters and/or become annonymous. 5 editors wich are "confirmed socks" used this service(COFS, CSI LA, Misou, Grrrrla and Makoshack). Most editors probably do not know that it is not allowed to edit wikipedia using a proxy of this kind (WP:NOP) and there is no reason to assume bad faith only because an editor used such a sevice. However, 5 user used the same service and also sometimes the same CoS IP. There are about 10 pro-scientology editors in wikipedia. 5 of them used your-freedom.net. my own original research:" max. 50 000 users of your-freedom.net worldwide(statement by your-freedom.net * 5). min. 200 000 000 english speaking individuals world wide(very low figure) wich have internet access and are able to edit in WP. The formula to evaluate the probability for this incident is (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 10) * (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 9) * (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 8) * (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 7) = 0.000000000020 = 0.0000000020 %. This does not even include the circumstance that 4 of them also used the same CoS provider. The probability that 4 out of 5 editors wich used the the same CoS IP also used your-freedom.net without knowing each other is (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 5) * (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 4) * (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 3) * (50 000 / 200 000 000 * 2) = 0.0000000000001 = 0.00000000001 %. It probably never happened in WP ever.(based on the assumption that they didn't know each other and didn't recommend this service to each other.)" Even if there is really a proxy wich is used by over 1000 Scientologists wich might explain why they used the same CoS IP(no evidence that such a service even exists), there is still an explanation missing for this unbelievable coincidence that they also used your-freedom.net. Only Misou made a statement for the use of your-freedom.net. He denied that he recommended this service or that one of the other "socks" recommended this service to him wich could have been an explanation. He also insists that he used this service not on Scientology owned equipment. Neither COFS,Makoshak, CSI LA and Grrrrila gave an explanation why they did use not just CoS proxies but also your-freedom.net. Unfortunately COFS made no plausible statement here wich could explain this coincidences. Right now it is not possible to assume that this users didn't know each other and didn't work together at least on a certain degree wich highly contradict their own statements. I brought up this evidence because a lot of people speculated about the use of CoS IP's but left out the simultaneous use of "your-freedom.net" by COFS and his "socks". -- Stan talk 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Lsi john

[edit] Response to Anynobody's claims that other editors are the cause of his difficulty with communication [119]

On June 26, after a tiresome conversation, Bishonen requested that Anynobody not post on her page anymore [120], yet, only 41 minutes later, he posted there again anyway [121], and was reverted by an admin [122].

After Bishonen posted her evidence (above), Anynobody posted on her talkpage, "pointing out her mistake" and suggesting she would "be embarassed" by her mistake [123]. Based on her prior request and the nature of his post, I initially reverted him [124], then reconsidered my involvement and self-reverted [125].

Bishonen AGF'd and tried talking with him, but subsequently again asked him not to post on her page any more [126]. Therefore, when he posted again, 2hr 42min later, [127] [128], I reverted him [129].

At the time that I reverted Anynobody, I had not seen Yomangani's post on Anynobody's page [130], where Yomangani politely suggested that Anynobody honor Bishonen's request, and where Anynobody subsequently accused Yomangani of trolling [131], using his version of 'accusation by implication'.

Ultimately, Bishonen posted on Anynobody's page [132] to 'yet again' point Anynobody to the same information she'd given him at least three times before. He assured her that he knew what she meant, and proceeded to draw diagrams to explain why Bishonen and her friends were wrong (here).

Peace.Lsi john 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by User:Steve Dufour

I have been involved with the Scientology series for quite a while. I have seen that there are COI situations from both Scientology members and anti-Scientologists. Both are wrong. However, both the number of people and the time they dedicate is much greater on the anti-Scientology side. There are now over 300 articles in the Scientology series. That is about one for every 333 Scientologists in the world. Steve Dufour 07:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Misou (talk • contribs • logs)

[edit] Rebuttal of Anynobody's evidence

Anynobody, you worked down you own statistic for the past 4 weeks so that in your own result you now seem "neutral". In the times I was editing in L. Ron Hubbard and contributed dozens of neutral sources - months ago, sources still in there - you were exclusively busy attending an edit war, up to the point that the article had to be frozen. Coming along now doing the "neutral" number is interesting. Shows that you try to get the attention off of you. Why? You were main "contributor" to Hubbard until we all went onto something else. You then got your own article (the LRH military one) and went along exclusively there with your personal theories about Hubbard and his military career. Seems cheating to me, and actually the opposite of what your title says.
BTW, people working in the same article kinda "work together" to create a good article. I don't get what's wrong with that. Please explain. Misou 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by SheffieldSteel

[edit] Snapshot: bad faith POV editing and uncivil comments by Misou

Misou took time out from an edit war (he/she apparently was happy with the resulting lock of the page) to revert a good faith edit I made, which attempted to give the same prominence to one critical quotation as was given to three pro-Scientology quotations.

Note the edit comments

  1. Auditing Confidentiality - match format of other quotes
  2. sheffield, please stick to accurate descriptions. you just faked the quote but "improving the presentation".

Context: I have taken a break from editing Scientology articles and over the last few months, more and more information has been added to Scientology#Auditing_Confidentiality, mainly pro-Scientology sources saying that abuse of auditing confidentiality is a terrible thing and is against the rules of the church, etc. - apparently all in an effort to bury or hide the quotation from a judge which said that "the record is replete with evidence of such abuse". Therefore I attempted to provide an accurate quote from the source and restore some balance to the section. The version after Misou's revert clearly shows the attempts by pro-Scientology editors to give more prominent formatting to their side of the story.

  • Misou did not improve, but reverted my edit. If the issue was merely that I had "faked the quote" the quotes could still have been given the same format.
  • I admit that my edit comment only covered the change in formatting and did not address the restoration of the longer quote. Initially I intended to only correct the imbalance in formatting, but after writing an edit summary and on seeing the preview of the text in "cquote" format it looked far too small so I decided to restore the original, longer quote and put it in context.
  • I would like to stress for the record that the quotation is taken from page 8 of the court findings and not "faked" - a claim made by Misou in the edit comment and repeated here.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Raymond Hill

I previously posted that to wikiquette this week, but I realize this might be appropriate to post this here (I just went through this page.)

[edit] Continued hostility/personal attack from User:Misou

I noticed that the incivility has been persistent. The sarcasm and disparaging tone already makes it difficult to discuss issues on respectful terms. I especially take offense as being described as an individual bent on 'hate propaganda'. All considered, it's difficult for me to imagine that the points I bring will be evaluated honestly by the user. Raymond Hill 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced content from User:Misou

  • Removal of sourced contents, summarized as follow: "Sorry Chris, this is just not part of regualar Scientology teachings but some druggies' wet dreams" (ironically, "some druggies' wet dreams" defies WP:OR itself). Among the sources that were removed, the Los Angeles Times, and L. Ron Hubbard himself. Raymond Hill 03:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack from User:Justanother

Personal attack of User:Justanother on User:Touretzky: "an extremist like Touretzky" [133]. Raymond Hill 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, of course, that Justanother does not realize (or remember?) that David Touretzky is a Wikipedia editor. Insults directed at Prof. Touretzky -- even when he was neither party to, nor topic of, the conversation -- were typical of some Scientology-affiliated contributors on alt.religion.scientology back in the day. --FOo 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Further consideration: Even if Dr. Touretzky wasn't a Wikipedia editor, I consider User:Justanother comment would violate WP:BLP — this kind of comment doesn't belong "to any Wikipedia page". Raymond Hill 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.