Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Contents 1 Evidence 1.1 Citing another open arbcom case? 2 Pasted Su-Jada comments from Evidence page 3 Would it be considered fishing to submit WP:RFCUs on 4 About the pro versus anti dichotomy 5 Evidence (or opinion) 6 Declined? 7 Use of copyrighted image 8 Attacks 9 Durova 10 Kinds of evidence 10.1 Will the ArbCom help with non-proxy related conflicts and behaviour issues? 11 Presentation 12 Presentation 2 12.1 Quick clarification of my personal position 12.2 Let's get Justanother?! A comment on Anynobody's and Durova's recent "evidence" 13 Latest Jehochman vs. Justanother on the evidence page STRICKEN 14 Request for refactoring and clarity 15 Justanother's clarification section 15.1 Questions/comments from others 16 Moved from evidence page 16.1 Same mistake 16.1.1 Tabulation 17 An interesting tool for anonymous IP edit history 18 Comment for Sheffi 19 misous objection against the comments made by Stan En

[edit] Evidence

Is the Arbcom interested in proof that accounts editing from IP identified by WP:RFCU are also editing under a WP:COI? Anynobody 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding, accounts and IP addresses that originate from a specific organization and edit articles about that organization have a presumptive WP:COI (of course I don't speak for the Committee when I say that). Perhaps the most famous example is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. The way I've handled investigations, mere existence of COI doesn't necesssarily mean violation of the COI guideline. If an organization appoints a specific spokesperson who openly declares the affiliation and posts reliably sourced suggested edits to article talk pages, that's fine with me. Plenty of firms make mistakes in this area when they're new to Wikipedia and to some extent that's understandable. Some inappropriate advice has been circulating in the business press that lumps Wikipedia together with MySpace and other Web 2.0 venues.

I'm curious whether this case will establish some sharper definition of how WP:AGF and WP:COI dovetail. Yet at this point, since I'm aware of no actual evidence that would establish a reason to challenge the checkuser, it could be helpful if some of the Scientologist editors solicited an official statement from the CoS IT team. Also, if CoS doesn't already have some internal policy on Wikipedia editing it would probably be to their benefit to establish one, per User:Jmabel/PR and this article. Durova^Charge! 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The COI guideline exists to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral source of information. As Wikipedian's we have a strong interest in protecting our brand, and we have the right to set whatever policies further our goals. The COI guideline is not only concerned about actual COI, but also apparent COI. Using an organization's proxy server allows the organization to monitor every edit made. Whether we are talking about a religious organization, or in some other instance a business, Wikipedia must be concerned that these edits could be influenced by the subject of the article. When edits can be monitored, pressure can be applied to members of the organization to make those edits more favorable. This represents an insidious violation of WP:NPOV that cannot be tolerated. creates the appearance that the organization is editing it's own page. Whether the organization is using unofficial volunteers or paid staff doesn't matter so much. Jehochman ^Hablar 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points, Durova. I think it would be most unwiki to exclude editors based solely on a COI, some people can balance their feelings and the rules. However if a COI appears to have gotten the better of an editor, we should not hesitate to act once sufficient warning/explanations are given.

I was wondering how we are treating the other accounts identified by checkuser like Misou or CSI LA. Should we include evidence about them too? Anynobody 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Jehochman's statement, but we don't know if the IP is indeed a CoS tool, merely an excuse made up by a puppet master, or something else. Personally I'm keeping all options open, but since this arbcom is about only one of the possible socks are we assuming the others are different people? Anynobody 06:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since part of the question at issue here is the validity of the COFS checkuser result, it seems to me that evidence about any of those other accounts is potentially valid. Bear in mind that none of them have edited in a while, so if the case proceeds purely on that basis it might close quickly. I hope to clear my name of some of the accusations that have been made against me recently and I have a hunch that article probation would be a good idea for Scientology-related topics. If any of the named editors on either side of this case have violated policy in relation to this dispute then this would be the place to air the evidence. Of course, as always, that's just my finger to the wind and I have no more access to the Committee's deliberations than any other editor.

What I always advise named parties to do is examine their own actions, assume responsibility for any mistakes, and take corrective steps. In most arbiration cases the participants spend considerable energy identifying each others' faults but little on their own. Arbitration happens because people weren't able to solve their own problems. So I think the best way to handle arbitration is to demonstrate that I can exercise sufficient self-control and don't need any external remedies. Occasionally everyone comes to that realization and the case ends with a handshake, such as here. That's really the best solution when it can be achieved. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just another data point: there is not one IP; there are several IPs that have been used by the same subset of editors. (Three user ids in particular used each of them, and then each has been used by a few different editors.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• But they all resolve to the CoS, right? Without knowing the ins and outs of their network and gateway configuration, what assumptions do you think should be made? As regards the one IP that was blocked briefly I was informed by e-mail (in response to a question I raised on-wiki) that it is used by many Scientologists worldwide including non-staff volunteers in offices of groups like CCHR. That is just one IP. Given that and the conditions that I mention on the evidence page, I think the only assumption that can be made when we note someone editing from a CoS IP is that they likely are a Scientologist in good standing with their church. Like me or any number of actual and potential editors here. That is about it. Certainly no slam-dunk COI. Unless someone thinks that I have a COI in editing here? Anyone think that? --Justanother 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, they do not all resolve to CoS. One does. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, don't you think that since pretty much the entirety of this arbitration is about those IP's, that you should reveal at least what firm and location they resolve to? If not the IPs themselves. How can we evaluate what, if any, COI and/or puppetry issue(s) exist without that information because based simply on the CoS gateway, I do not think we can. Too many variables. --Justanother 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should; it's something we get to figure out as we work on this case. At the moment, I'm still holding it close to my chest in the name of checkuser confidentiality, and researching; it's possible that the addresses have already been revealed somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• (EC) "at least what firm and location they resolve to and which editors used which", I should say. And I know that you'all will decide but we are the ones asked to present evidence. So if you are the jury, then we are the attorneys, and we need sufficient information in order to present adequate evidence. --Justanother 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, for your acting as an "attorney" for the cofs I suggest you reread the reason why this arbitration is being conducted. All the information is there.--Fahrenheit451 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

F451, why are you trying to reflect or divert attention upon who I am or what I am doing? I am doing what I assume an interested party is supposed to do - presenting evidence and opinion that I believe should be considered. Do you have a problem with that? Why? F451, if it is your intention to be disruptive, I suggest that you refrain. --Justanother 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I caution you about violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Please stop falsely accusing and being disruptive of this arbitration. I wonder if you are accusing me of exactly what YOU are attempting to do.--Fahrenheit451 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is the Fahrenheit451 I've come to know. Please do us all a favor and knock off the "bait and bitch". It is very obvious. Guys like you, F451, are the reason that the atmosphere in the Scientology articles is as poisonous as it is. Thanks for joining us and providing some authenticity. --Justanother 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, this page is for discussion of the arbitration regarding your organization's use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I looks to me like you may be attempting to steer this discussion off-course by your personal attacks, incivility, and lack of good faith. I am warning you again, knock off it off.--Fahrenheit451 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I request that the ArbCom read my statements of evidence here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Evidence. Please bear in mind that the cofs is not a hospitality corporation.--Fahrenheit451 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that CofS includes a hospitality operation. If we saw a stream of POV-type edits to Hilton Hotels coming from an IP address that resolved to Hilton, that would definitely raise suspicions of COI. I fully agree with Justanother that the network location alone does not prove a COI violation. However, the network location plus the nature of the edits, plus other factors indicative of COI tend to create a very strong case. The resolution is for editors using the CoS network to realize that they need to be very careful to observe Wikipedia's content policies, including WP:NPOV, and that they need to avoid edit warring, lest their behavior reflect poorly on the CoS. Perhaps the CoS should establish policies and conduct user training to educate their people about best practices for contributing to Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Hablar 20:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that we are getting a bit of a handle on it. The difference between the Hilton example and here is that the Hilton population is heterogeneous and any consistent POV would be an anomaly worth investigating. I can just about guarantee that every single Scientologist is dismayed at what is presented here. The fact is that, to an incredible degree, the Scientology series articles were written by highly POV anti-Scientologists that have little understanding of what Scientology is or how it is practiced; they only have knowledge of biased misrepresentations of Scientology. There are exceptions to that but that is the norm. What that means is that when someone that knows Scientology and holds it in good regard sees these articles it can be a bit overwhelming. The overwhelming temptation is to remove lies and misrepresentations. Imagine how you would feel, Jehochman, if, for example, the entire article on SEO was written by critics of SEO and it presents SEO as a scam perpetrated by a bunch of scammers and that everyone that was involved in SEO was a criminal. In other words it took valid criticism, blew it out of proportion, and made that the entirety of the subject. You might be tempted to get right in there and moderate the misrepresentation. But what if every time you tried you found embedded POV editors instantly reverted you. You might get frustrated and you might "get in trouble". So when you say "the nature of the edits" I say that we cannot simply say that in an off-the-cuff fashion (not accusing you of that) but that we need to look at the individual edits and make a judgement as to whether they, on a one-by-basis and taken collectively, are indicative of blatent COI or are they good-faith edits in accordance with policy or are they something in-between. --Justanother 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, it is not a fact and there is no evidence that scientology series articles have been written by "highly POV anti-scientologists". That is your opinion. Also, you quote, "I can just about guarantee that every single Scientologist is dismayed at what is presented here." again is not based on surveys or studies, but your opinion solely. I see little substance to your defenses of the repeated violations of Wikipedia policy by users from the Church of Scientology International proxy. A corporation is a single entity that needs to be addressed as a single user.--Fahrenheit451 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For those that are not as familiar with the Scientology series articles and who wrote them as Mr. 451 is, I offer this gloat by über-critic Dave Touretzky:

"Wikipedia has evolved into a huge, glowing mass of entheta. An entheta-palooza!"

Entheta mean "enturbulated theta" and that means lies, upsetting lies (theta being "truth" and enturbulated meaning "screwed up"). A few Scientology-series regulars are mentioned and acknowledged for their "good work" but I will not repeat their usernames here. This is relevant to illustrate just what we are dealing with in the Scientology-series articles; a clique of off-wiki critics that have, until fairly recently, held the series in a strangle hold, running "bait and block" on any Scientologist that showed up and creating such a poisonous atmosphere over there that neutral editors and admins steer it a wide berth. That has changed and, hopefully, this action will help with the continued change over there to a place where people of all opinions can work together in something approaching harmony. --Justanother 01:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Justanother. One person, a David Touretzky, makes a comment that happens to be favorable to how the cofs wants current Wikipedia articles portrayed and you state it as if it were fact. On the other hand, you don't quote the negative statements Touretzky makes about scientology and you label him an über-critic. The cofs does not want his other statements believed, but this particular one is emphasized because it forwards the OSA party line. What a remarkable contrast: An über-critic who can speaks truth when you want it to be true, and lies when you want it to be a lie. Do you think your above statements contradict your below statements, "I, personally, hold Wikipedia policy in the highest esteem and consider it an inspired guide and an example of the best of 'group wisdom'"?--Fahrenheit451 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what I think, we've been nicely asked by jpgordon to refrain so I will refrain from saying what I think and will let your behavior here speak for itself. --Justanother 05:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, then I will tell that your cited statements are contradicting. That means one or both are false. That means you are not being truthful. That behavior of yours is quite clear.--Fahrenheit451 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, the situation with the Search engine optimization article was to a lesser degree what you describe. Over a long period of time the article was improved, featured, and it even ran on the main page yesterday. This was all done without edit warring, incivility, or Arbcom litigation. My fellows within the SEO community laughed[1][2] at my naive efforts to work within the system, but I had the last laugh.

Of course, SEO has a huge impact on this dispute because these Scientology articles rank first or second in Google, so they have a tremendous impact on Scientology's public image. You might consider reading an essay I started, WP:SEO, for tips on effective reputation management.

You need to work within Wikipedia policy to resolve NPOV problems. I agree with you that the Scientology articles should be inspected for anti-Scientology bias. Any problems should be fixed. At the same time, I oppose COI editing, fighting POV pushing with more POV pushing, and confronting incivility with more incivility. You'll notice that every comment I make within this case includes advice for what the parties can do to make things better. Nobody needs to be blocked or banned as a result of this case if each party examines their own actions and figures our how to be more effective. Jehochman ^Hablar 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I, personally, hold Wikipedia policy in the highest esteem and consider it an inspired guide and an example of the best of "group wisdom". I repeatedly have said that all the Scientologists need do to improve the situation is insist that the articles conform to policy. However, I would not characterize COFS' editing as "COI editing, fighting POV pushing with more POV pushing, and confronting incivility with more incivility" without examining the edits he was making and the opposition that he was encountering. Making such generalities, that may not be directed at COFS but will likely be taken as such, without providing diffs to back up these accusations is not in the best interests of a fair and unbiased hearing here. --Justanother 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, were you including the two instances where COFS vandalized my user page? Also, you state that you "hold Wikipedia policy in the highest esteem". So, please explain this item on your discussion page: [3]--Fahrenheit451 23:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we look at the "vandalized my user page" issue we will see that you were baiting COFS with your fake "auditing" and with holding the exchange up to scorn on your user page. All COFS did was add the rest of the context to what you had already put on your user page. As far as your second "point", sorry, I won't play. Nor will I discuss your first "point" further with you either (I will be happy to explain it to others), the context is clear for any neutral editor to see. --Justanother 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Guys, get a room. Not this one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, Hi. I apologize for Justanother's "spirited exuberance" and sensitivity to answering questions. Justanother needs to apply WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to these discussions.--Fahrenheit451 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The above by Mr. 451 speaks more eloquently for itself than anything I could say. Thank you. --Justanother 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, indeed, Justanother.--Fahrenheit451 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, I want to be as accurate as I can when describing the WP:RFCU results. Is this table representative of them:

Account	IP 1	IP 2	IP 3	IP 4	IP 5	IP 6
COFS	-	x	-	x	-	x
CSI LA	x	x	-	-	x	x
Misou	-	x	x	-	-	x
Other 1	-	x	-	-	-	x
Other 2	x	x	-	-	-	x

I know you can't give specifics of course, but I feel like I'm unintentionally misrepresenting the situation when I describe it. Anynobody 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's something like that (actually, quite close). Thanks for suggesting the format -- I'll build such a thing and fill it in. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I suggest that this table be placed on the evidence page.--Fahrenheit451 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Fahrenheit451. I think it sums up the situation in a more NPOV way than a paragraph describing it would. However this table is just a general illustration for the talk page, so I'll include it when jpgordon has modified it.

Thank you for helping clarify this. jpgordon I really appreciate it. Anynobody 05:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While the userid has been absent from editing for almost a year, I suspect you'll find that Nuview fits on that IP chart in the 205.227.165/24 range. AndroidCat 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing another open arbcom case?

I noticed some very similar aspects involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal, is there a restriction on citing it as another situation where WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:DE intersected for similar reasons? (I don't want to mess up either case so I felt it would be best to ask before posting my observations.) Anynobody 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a response I'm assuming it's ok to cite other open cases. Anynobody 21:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss that case if you want, although of course the arbitrators will judge each situation on its own merits. Newyorkbrad 21:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Good deal, I don't want to influence the other case; just point out that WP:COI issues aren't restricted to Scientology articles but they cause similar problems. Anynobody 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the arbitrators already know that :) , but feel free to develop your arguments. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume they do too, but assumption can be a mistake. Besides others may read this someday and may not know, so even if the arbitrators already know I won't be wasting my time :) Anynobody 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pasted Su-Jada comments from Evidence page

Response to Jehochman

Where I can understand what these editors are voicing, you can hardly call this a reason for prohibiting the person from editing. So, he's proud of being a Scientologist. Okay. Tilman is a frequent editor of Scientology-related topics, and he has very strong views on Scientology and no one is saying he should not be allowed to edit. If we are going to say those who are pro-Scientology and Scientologists should not be allowed to edit wouldn't we also have to say those with a strong view against Scientology not be allowed to edit? I know I diverge a bit from the sockpuppet/meatpuppet idea, but saying all Scientologists are simply meatpuppets -- that's pretty outragreous, don't you think?Su-Jada 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is stating that. You are making that interpretation for yourself.--Fahrenheit451 03:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that every Scientologist who follows Wikipedia's rules should be allowed to edit. Jehochman ^Hablar 03:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Fubar Obfusco

I am not sure what the etiquette is in arbitration and if it is incorrect for me to comment on others communications, please will someone let me know the correct way to respond? However I felt compelled to state my point of view on some of these items, and am doing so. I would be happy to edit them to make them conform to proper usage if this is not the normal way to do so. With all due respect to the person who posted this item, Operation Freakout occurred more than 30 years ago and was the product of renegade members of a since-disbanded office of the Church of Scientology called the Guardian Office. As to abuses of the Internet by Scientologists, most of what you are writing about took place in or before the early days of the worldwide web, and I'm sure if you asked Scientologists what they think of people who put up sites that promote they are there to get people out of Scientology they would feel those actions are pretty abusive too. But, be that as it may, it is outrageous to suggest that Scientologists be denied their freedom of speech and expression in Wikipedia because they are Scientologists! Su-Jada 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian Office was disbanded and replaced with the Office of Special Affairs. Many of the key people who were in the GO, including the Commanding Officer, Mike Rinder are in OSA. The differences are that OSA has no Finance Bureau and a different name. As far as internet abuses from the cofs, as we have witnessed here in Wikipedia, such things still occur. Looks like the cofs is slow to learn.--Fahrenheit451 03:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration addresses user conduct issues rather than content disputes. To the extent that issues related to this matter constitute violations of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, please present page diffs as evidence. For example, has someone consistently flouted Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in article space regarding this subtopic? A summary with relevant examples could be valuable at arbitration. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would it be considered fishing to submit WP:RFCUs on

Justanother and Bravehartbear, I'm wondering if they have used either Scientology IP, or perhaps another one. Anynobody 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of sheer curosity? That would be a good definition for fishing, yes.

Anynobody, the committee members are quite capable of checking (and I'm sure they already have), but your concern is noted. However, given that you already know where Bravehartbear edits from, releasing information about Justanother's logins could be giving you personal information about his location (if they intersected with COFS or Braveheartbear) and that would be unacceptable. Peace.Lsi john 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon did this edit mean there are no other accounts involved in this case that have used those IPs?

To address concerns about personal information being released, this is not what the WP:RFCU process does. Wikipedia has strict privacy policies, in fact the entire Wikimedia organization uses them, see the Privacy policy for more information. Lsi john, having submitted a successful WP:RFCU request in the past, I assure you there is more than curiosity behind my original question. Anynobody 22:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, think about it. I've obviously checked COFS et al, and recently. Don't you think I'd have raised my hand and said, "Excuse me, Mr. Justanother and/or Mr. Braveheartbear, something seems a bit improper here"? (I assume we don't get to consider Earthlink a Scientology operation anymore...) (After conflict) If there were other accounts in this case who had edited on those IPs, within the limited timeframe checkuser is useful for, I'd have screeched like a banshee. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't know if you were allowed to access checkuser without someone making a request for you to. Anynobody 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can. But somebody did ask us to. That's what got this whole thing started. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS didn't mention Justanother and no confirmation was given about Bravehartbear . Anynobody 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. But the way checkuser works is that first we find out what IPs an editor has been using, and then we find out what other editors have been using those IPs. We don't get to say "show me what if any IPs the following editors have in common", though that would a convenient tool. But: RFCU is just a convenience; I'd venture that more checkuser runs are made without an RFCU posting than otherwise. Also, RFCU isn't used for cases currently in arbitration. And you can pretty much assume that on an arbcom case with real or accused sockpuppetry, we do a lot of checking. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, Not directly related to this case, but in general, do you wait until the end of arbitration to act on your findings? i.e. if you were to find 7 socks of a user, would you announce that up front, or wait until everyone was finished presenting? (7 being an arbitrary number greater than none). Peace.Lsi john 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, one form of abusive sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts to stack opinions on any page, be it an article talk page or an ArbCom evidence page. If we found that that was going on, our eyebrows would certainly be raised and it would strongly affect the progress and outcome of the case. Remember: it's not against the rules to use multiple accounts; it's only against the rules to do so abusively. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to mention that on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? If something had been said about arbitrators doing their own research I'd of assumed neither editor was using the IPs in question. Anynobody 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you assume that? I don't. What I assume is that if the arbitrators felt it was relevant to this case, and didn't violate privacy, and felt WE needed to know, they would have told us. I assume nothing further from lack of information.

And, can we assume as a neutral editor you will also run your % graphs on the anti-scientologist editors? Giving us percentages on pro-editors doesn't give us much of a basis to use your graph. Peace.Lsi john 23:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And, as a neutral editor, this post seems a bit non-neutral. .. defend each other nearly as .. COS editors. :) Peace.Lsi john 23:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The way you quote it does sound non-neutral, however you're leaving out much of that post.

You've been the recipient more than a few times of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations from Scientologists in the time I've been editing here. I want to cite some of these instances as points about how a shared WP:COI can affect other editors. For example while you and I more or less agree on most articles, we do not defend each other nearly as strenuously or blindly as CoS members do.

This is a better way for others to understand my post. Anynobody 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it sounds pretty 'our team' versus 'their team' no matter how you 'quote it'. I particularly like your neutral chart. By the way, which administrators are guilty of the alignment with Scientologist editors? We're in arbcom, we need to be specific. Peace.Lsi john 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have no objection to your post. I just think it calls your declared (your emphasis) neutrality into question. Peace.Lsi john 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, totally-uninvolved-in-this-situation editor here. After reading this conversation (which I find fascinating), I think you're reading a lot more into that comment than is there. Anynobody specifically said a shared WP:COI affects "other editors," and the next sentence reads to me like he's just counting himself as one such "other editor." When he said "we do not defend each other," I took "we" simply to mean non-Scientologist editors. He's not a member of a "team" unless all non-Scientologist editors are. And that would make neutral POV impossible, if you're counting all such editors that way. GoodDamon 02:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I was specifically referring to his declaration on the evidence page about being neutral to CoS (presumably to CoS editors as well). His 'lumping' of Scientologists into a 'group' that 'defends each other' would seem indicate that he is not neutral, as does his 1-sided editing chart on the evidence page, as well as his 'table' on that user's talkpage. And, again, I have no objection to someone having a decided POV. I just thought it was interesting that he boldly declared he was neutral. Totally uninvolved? diff? Peace.Lsi john 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved with the deliberations here, and not specifically asked for any input by anyone. Yes, I did ask that question on the Scientology talk page, but haven't been involved in the RfA (is that how it's usually denoted?) here whatsoever.

I've been watching this discussion out of curiosity. I find it and the Wikipedia systems fascinating, but don't really consider myself qualified to comment on anything, with the exception of matters concerning language, syntax, typos, grammar, and the like.

In this instance, I just wanted to point out that linguistically speaking, Anynobody hadn't grouped himself with any "team" more specific than non-Scientologists.

I expect Anynobody would liken his situation to that of a referee confronted by a soccer team that shows a pattern of misbehavior. From the perspective of said soccer team, the ref would definitely appear biased, but from his perspective, he's just trying to get them to stop cheating.

Please don't take that as my stance, though. That's just what I perceive his stance to be, and (from a linguistic angle, at least) he hasn't said anything counter to that. And now I've gotten into this more than I intended to. I'm seriously only qualified to fix typos and grammar, and should probably just go back to lurking. GoodDamon 03:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Damon, you are correct in that "linquistically" that is how Anynobody presents himself. However if you were to be more familiar with his history here and especially his interactions with others you might see something quite different; "meddlesome troublemaker" would be a charitable way to put it. I will post some diffs of uninvolved parties editorializing on the nature of Mr. Nobody when I have more time or perhaps another might do the same. --Justanother 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'm in this now. I'll look at your diffs when you have them. But I must say, in this conversation he has seemed pretty neutral, and hasn't called anyone a "meddlesome troublemaker," which isn't the best way to convince me of somebody's non-neutrality. GoodDamon 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Damon, you are not "in this now" unless you care to be in it. I simply state that you are judging a book by its cover with zero familiarity with what lies inside that book and then you interject your, IMO, naive assessment into what might be a very contentious debate. Hey, I wouldn't do that but that is just me. Sorry for the bluntness but I am a blunt guy. --Justanother 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in linguistics, perhaps you could look at the evidence of sock puppetry, then review the contributions of the relevant users, and then explain to us why these editors do or do not seem to be the same person based on their language patterns. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a look at whatever you'd like, but I don't know the system here well enough. Where would I find the evidence of sock puppetry? GoodDamon 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, one of the techniques used in complex investigations is to check for characteristic quirks. For example, some editors demonstrated that BooyakaDell was a JB196 sockpuppet because both accounts consistently used and misspelled the same word in edit summaries. To a lesser degree, excess punctuation and convoluted syntax contributed to the Joan of Arc vandal investigation. This technique can't prove a negative, of course, but it can be quite useful at times. I'll share more with you off-wiki if you're interested - sometimes banned users follow my posts and I don't like to teach them how to become better sockpuppeteers (by this I mean editors who are already banned, not any of the named parties in this case). Durova^Charge! 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon , both of your questions have the same answer. You would start by going through article edit history, and user edit history. You copy statements (and times) made by different editors to a spreadsheet. You begin comparing linguistic similarities (grammar/common mispelling/wiki-usage). You look at the conversations surrounding the posts. You look at log-in times and compare them between accounts. You look at the variety (or lack of variety) in articles they edited, as well as common timeframes. You observe the number of times multiple admins have used the word 'troll' to describe an editor. Things like that. And then, if you can make a sufficient number of similar and linkable patterns, you have a case for 'socks'. Note: It is not as much about what someone 'says' about themselves, or how 'reasonable' they sound in their presentation, but what the vast expanse of their activities demonstate about them. And although I could provide substantial links/diffs about him, this arbitration isn't about Anynobody. My only point was to note the contrast between his 'stated' neutrality and his 'actions' which appear to be focused on finding evidence to convict, rather than 'all' evidence no matter what it suggests. (eg, his chart on the evidence page goes to great lengths to show us about only 1 side of the issue). Peace.Lsi john 16:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't know exactly how the arbitrators will feel about its length, THIS is a very good example for documenting socks and COI, in my not-so-humble opinion. It sticks to the facts and doesn't inject 'opinion'. Peace.Lsi john 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In contrast, for example, with Anynobody's remarks (in his evidence) which declare that 'COFS couldnt keep their COI under control', but provides No Evidence to support the claim, as if the claim itself is sufficient. Peace.Lsi john 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is in the logs, but I assume that there is no helpful shared, but otherwise, unique browser string among some of the users? (Usually this will just be the user's common browser and OS, but sometimes combinations of OS, browser software, add-ons and adware can make it a useful fingerprint. e.g. "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; SIMBAR Enabled; SIMBAR=3D{017BCC56-0ECD-42c7-B9AD-DF1DCBC032BE}; SIMBAR=3D0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)") This could be used to point to a shared PC rather than scattered PCs via a hypothetical proxy. AndroidCat 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• We have no such clues either way on that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you feel it relevant, maybe the names listed could be linked to their corresponding search results;
who.is #1
who.is #6
Anynobody 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon , I can't sum up your description any better. Anynobody 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the pro versus anti dichotomy

I have observed several cofs connected editors characterize certain Wikipedia editors who they have had content disputes with on Scientology articles as "critics" and anti-Scientology. I suggest that this stereotyping is a manifestation of WP:COI.--Fahrenheit451 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, without having diffs it'd hard to address your point. Though, I'd suggest that if an editor consistently adds material that criticizes something, it is not unreasonable to refer to them as a 'critic'. (e.g. Tilman's website is fairly clearly anti-scientology, ergo it's reasonable to refer to him as a critic). In the same way that we appear to be 'looking for evidence' to prove that (ahem) 'cos-editors' have a COI. And, in the same way that I've been referred to as a "scientologist editor" and a "scientologist supporter" and "pro scientologist", when I don't believe that I've ever made a single pro-scientology edit or specifically 'defended' anything a scientologist has done. So it would seem that 'stereotyping' is being done all around. Just one of those goose-gander observations. Peace.Lsi john 12:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have spoken up in support of some Scientologists (eg when I felt they were unjustly accused), but to my knowledge I've never 'defended' their actions. And I've also spoken up in support of some COS 'critics'. (e.g. on the talkpage of Tilman's Bio I supported his request to 'stop' a discussion, where he was repeatedly claiming 'libel' and NPA.) Peace.Lsi john 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the diffs is in this discussion: [4] posted by User:Justanother.--Fahrenheit451 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The COFS editors have never described me as a critic. They've always been polite to me as best I can remember, though they might disagree with some of the things I've said and done. I think we should focus on the issues of sockpuppetry and COI. Those are the real issues in dispute that we'd like Arbcom to clarify. Dressing up this case with lots of extraneous issues isn't productive. Bear in mind that after we're done here there will probably be an investigation of the anti-COFS editors to see whether they have been violating NPOV, and we may end up back at Arbcom. Treat others they way you would like to be treated yourself, because there's a very real possibility that the roles will be reversed next time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Though I'm not sure that this arbcom couldn't include both, assuming the participants wished to include cross-charges. And, some of this really is 'relevant' to this arbcom, as the edit 'patterns' are what will be used to determine COI for the most part. We can all have a POV, as long as it doesn't affect our editing. And, there is no way to directly prove a relationship-COI in this case, short of admission. And I believe jpgordan has stated that he has not found any 'overt' violations. (note: I recall reading something which suggested this, but I can't find it so I'll retract the statement Peace.Lsi john 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) Which means, the outcome here will be based on 'opinion' and 'circumstantial evidence'. And, therefore, circumstantial evidence weighted toward one view (effect), without regard to the other (cause), would be unduly prejudicial.

For example: If we show every instance where a soldier shot someone, it would be easy to establish 'murder' .. provided we excluded any 'evidence' which showed the person being shot had a gun and was shooting back.

In response to AN's 'claims', I'd toss out this possible 'counter-spin' on it: Anynobody's observations about 'unified defense' are perhaps the result of (perceived?) 'unified attack'. Whereas, perhaps the COS editors aren't 'targeting' and 'going after' anyone in the same fashion, and perhaps don't have the same desire to be litigious? Whether or not we agree with them about Scientology, perhaps they are simply defending their religion against 'perceived' attack. There are certainly excesses on both sides, but "individual exceptions" doesn't seem to be ths focus of this arbitration.

It looks to me like the 'focus' is related specifically to COS editors who use a church IP to edit. And with that focus in mind, the question is, what evidence supports a claim that 'those' specific editors have behaved badly with respect to POV/NPOV editing? So far, I don't see that anyone has introduced any 'hard' evidence to support the claim. I see lots of 'smoke' about 'common IP' and socks. But so far, I don't see any real 'evidence' to support a claim of COI. Where are the diff's which show POV editing which is 'disproportionate' to the POV editing from the 'other side'? Peace.Lsi john 14:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When did I say anything about overt violations? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When one side is pushing away from NPOV, the other "side" in this dispute (added) will consistently push in the opposite direction. Both are wrong. We need objective editors who can make both positive and negative edits to the article. We don't need editors campaigning to spin the article this way or that way. Those editors would do well to choose from among the 1.4 million other articles. As an example, this editor, has chosen not to edit specific articles where she feels she can't be objective. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. You simply said it more elloquently and with brevity. Peace.Lsi john 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with Jehochman that COFS's supporters have always been civil to him:

• 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.[5]
• A redacted comment with an interesting edit note.[6]
• 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.

[7]

• Jehochman clearly doesn't like those people (Scientologists)...It makes perfect sense that Jehochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack.[8]

And in specific response to Jehochman's latest comment, if his premise is to assert that evidence of one side pushing POV in an edit dispute means that both sides have violated WP:NPOV, then I strongly disagree. Although many edit disputes do take that shape, in the rest it is nearly universal for the aggressive party to engage in mudslinging and baiting. WP:AGF compels us to regard each individual's actions on their own merits, basing our evaluation upon evidence rather than innuendo. Durova^Charge! 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I must be thick skinned.  :-) Those comments didn't bother me at all, but I suppose they could damage the ambiance of this place. I definitely did not mean to imply that one side POV pushing means the other side has violated NPOV. My point is only that two wrongs don't make a right. If one side is POV pushing, the resolution is NOT more POV pushing in the opposite direction. Jehochman ^Talk 07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am rather fed up with the behavior of both factions. That's why I made the comment. Jehochman ^Talk 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a good case made with regard to one side of the dispute and, so far, I haven't seen a strong rebuttal to it. As for the other, I've seen very serious assertions without much evidence. What I would very much like to do when the dust settles here is ask the community to restore the original wording at the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline that defines the standard for a disruptive editor as a consensus of uninvolved editors. From the time that guideline was written until a few months ago, editors who were partisans to a dispute could comment at community sanctions decisions but didn't actually weigh in the final decision. A small group of very aggressive editors did away with that standard and in my opinion they made a serious mistake. I opened the request for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram because an editor tried to canvass POV support for a community siteban. Perhaps the CN thread about COFS could have resolved at the community level if partisan editors on both sides were submitting commentary and evidence rather than deciding the outcome.

Also I see no reason why the same group that altered WP:DE insisted on shutting out mention of community topic bans from banning policy. ArbCom had already endorsed the community's right to topic ban and I cited the specific precedents on the policy talk page, but it didn't make any difference. Several of Lsi john's and Justanother's procedural qualms about the CN thread were actually positions I agree with 100%, but my points hadn't carried at policy discussions. Yes, it would make sense to notify the subject of a ban discussion and offer a fair chance for defense. It's sadly ironic that I get accused of ignoring non-admins' opinions after I was one of the most passionate voices against reverting the policy to administrative unilateralism. A couple of arbitrators were ready to take a recent arbitration request so that they could examine whether policies should be written by whoever is the most aggressive. I do hope the Committee examines those issues soon: the bulls left this china shop a few months ago and I think I hear crystal breaking halfway down the block. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence (or opinion)

Where is the 'evidence' which demonstrates that any of the editors involved have 'edited with a conflict of interested'? Where is the 'evidence' which demonstrates that any of the editors involved have 'systematically abused wikipedia' to distort the articles? Where are the COIN blocks? Where are the RfC's? If the Church of Scientology is involved in Conflict of Interest editing, why do the editors in question edit so infrequently? I see lots of 'allegations', where is the evidence to support them?

Sure, we have an RFCU which established a common IP. And that has been explained. The question is, was it abused? And, another question might be, should COI be applied with a stricter standard to one side than another? For example, if an editor regularly removes poorly sourced, or improperly cited material, is that evidence of conflict of interest or evidence of someone willing to stand up and make sure the rules are followed? If an editor is 'baited' by a misleading edit summary, and responds strongly, is that evidence of conflict of interest?

So far almost everything on the 'evidence' page is just someone's 'Opinion'. Anynobody comes the closest to providing 'facts', but even those seem to be a shot at his favorite target: Justanother and 'scientologists in general'. Unless I'm mistaken, the only 'declared' objective of this arbitration is to determine how to handle CoS editors who are editing via the church proxies, and whether those editors (COFS & Misou in particular) have a conflict of interest.

As much as I'm sure that editors critical of Scientology might enjoy having Scientologists banned from Scientology articles, based on their 'religious belief', I seriously doubt that will happen (and it shouldn't). It is the 'facts' that are relevant to an arbitration (and subsequent ruling). If a Scientologist's POV about Scientology is to be held against him, and prevent him from editing an article.. then Anynobody (who clearly is interested in military - and how it relates to L. Ron Hubbard) has a POV about the military which prevents him from editing fairly... etc. (Note: To my way of thinking, simply having a POV doesn't mean someone can't edit NPOV: (e.g. Justanother, as a declared Scientologist, seems to demonstrate NPOV editing pretty well). Peace.Lsi john 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Lsi, your last statement about Justanother reeks of your opinion. In contrast, I have seen Justanother edit both POV and NPOV, with partiality to the former. I think if you look on the evidence page you will find more real evidence than you care to admit.--Fahrenheit451 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I said he demonstrates NPOV pretty well, and I stand by that. I did not say he was a shining example of a perfect human being. He does not blindly delete sourced criticism and he does not seem to add unsourced pro-viewpoints. His recent participation on the Scientology talk pages, where they 'hashed out' an acceptable compromise version, is a good example of my statement. Do you consider all of your edits to be NPOV? Do you consider yourself to be an NPOV editor on the Scientology articles? Did you wish to declare your POV about Scientology here?
2. We clearly have a difference of opinion on what 'evidence about COI for COFS/Misou and other Scientologists who edit from church IPs' is. I see lots of speculation about different editors, but very few diffs which support claims of misconduct about the editors which are being looked at for 'conflict of interest'.
3. I do have a high regard for Justanother, but since this arbitration isn't 'about' him, what exactly is your point?
4. I will not engage you further here, as I doubt it would be productive. Peace.Lsi john 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Durova's entire 'evidence' section ends with a very good description of itself proof by assertion. All scientologists are guilty of COI and therefore COFS must be guilty and therefore we should community ban COFS. Evidence? none given. Peace.Lsi john 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lsi john, We are discussing your friend, Justanother here. Why are you attempting to change the subject? I think that YOUR POV is leaking out quite badly and has been for quite sometime.--Fahrenheit451 22:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Lsi john, I suggest that you take your own advice and provide diffs about the statements you allege. Please do not use generalities with us.--Fahrenheit451 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Lsi john, I made my point. I suggest that you re-read it for clarification.--Fahrenheit451 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Lsi john, I am warning you about violation of WP:AGF. I wonder if YOU have a WP:COI issue.--Fahrenheit451 22:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, John, I've never claimed that all Scientologists have COI. What I assert is that anyone who edits a Wikipedia article about XYZ from an IP address that resolves to XYZ does so with a presumptive conflict of interest, and should therefore do so with discretion. If that IP editor reverts obvious vandalism at the articles and provides suggested content changes with line citations at the talk pages then I might even award a barnstar. What I proposed, on a rather brief basis, is what COFS ought to have done voluntarily in accordance with the WP:COI guideline. I could have used the tools and I daresay a monthlong user block would have withstood review. I didn't do that because I agree with you that Scientologists have legitimate reason to have their voice heard at Wikipedia. Their religion has been a source of significant controversy and I could understand if they felt on the defensive here.

It was too much to insist at WP:CN that I first disregard a checkuser result, then embark on a radical reinterpretation of WP:COI that would amount to rewriting the guideline. I don't have checkuser privileges or any more access to their information than you have. This arbitration case might overturn that checkuser. As I've suggested once before, a letter from the Church of Scientology IT department might help there. Ask the clerk what other evidence the Committee would consider. As for the guideline, if you can formulate some interpretation that would accomplish your aims without hamstringing a broad swath of reasonable COI investigations then I might support you.

I'm not kidding about being willing to change my mind. At the very thorny Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education case I eventually advocated the siteban of an editor I had initially supported. What sways me is evidence. Back up your assertions with specific quotes and diffs and connect all the dots of your case. I intend to post more evidence and some of that will be directed at you, John, but it's quite simple to win me over: address my misgivings point by point and keep things calm and businesslike. If you can demonstrate with hard reasoning or evidence where I've been mistaken then I'll strikethrough and apologize as appropriate. I respect other editors who do likewise.

That said, I like rigorous reasoning. I have noticed that people who overuse logical fallacies seldom have strong legitimate arguments. The one you attempted above was a straw man. Although I do my best to be fair I am also a human being and there's a strong temptation to disregard a person's input if the fallacies appear to be habitual. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, that is ONE example from your point of view, out of how many contributions by other editors total? Your statement sure seems non-sequitur.--Fahrenheit451 22:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• People: you need to trust that ArbCom knows the difference between facts and opinions, between evidence and assertions. No need to argue about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, Thank you. It is frustrating for me when someone in authority starts with a presumption of guilt and they says 'prove me wrong with diffs', without giving any diffs to support 'guilt'.

Durova, perhaps we are reading the COI guideline differently. The COI guideline does not proscribe someone from editing, it proscribes them from editing "with COI POV BIAS". A checkuser does not establish COI. A checkuser result, showing common IP, shows the potential for COI, but it does not show that any COI editing was done. A user with COI can edit, and can edit without necessarily by default adding COI bias to their edits. Without providing diffs which demonstrate that an article resulted in 'imbalance' after (an otherwise indefensible) edit, you have not established COI editing, and therefore your 'presumption' of guilt is invalid. Your request for diffs is effectively a "prove you don't still beat your wife" request. And it is unfair. Peace.Lsi john 13:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, in contrast: THIS is an incredible example of detailed detective work which illustrates the claims being made, and allows the arbitrators to draw their own conclusions and make their own decisions. It is what 'evidence' should look like. (Though I'm sure the arbitrators will cringe at its length). Peace.Lsi john 13:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I agree that you and I read the COI guideline differently. I've already shown you two examples of analogous cases where an IP's resolution, combined with policy violations, established the matter. The better known of those examples is in my evidence. COFS's checkuser result and block history establish the rest.

I also think it would be in the best interests of the Scientologist editors to take a very close look at that example. The congressional office IP editing scandal became nationwide news and a real embarrassment to several legislators. It's the appearance of impropriety that made the difference to the press and a very similar appearance exists here. I have a strong hunch that the editors who have been coming to COFS's defense don't understand why I suggested confidential arbitration. If Justanother, COFS, etc. are exactly what they say they are - well-meaning volunteers who believe in Scientology and want to correct mistaken impressions - then I suggest they contact whoever does handle media relations officially for the Church of Scientology. I'd be glad to trade e-mails with a CoS representative and probably so would the Committee and the Foundation. Durova^Charge! 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Durova, Checkuser confirmed a common IP, nothing more (that I'm aware). To my knowledge, at the time they ran that checkuser, nobody knew that it was a church proxy IP. Sharing an ip is not a policy violation. Checkuer confirmed 'possible' socks accounts, and without further evidence thats all it confirmed. Socks are not a violation of policy.
2. You say: combined with policy violations. But you have not provided evidence of 'policy violations'. (Besides the fact that COI is a guideline, not a policy). So your thin thread, linking this case to the others, is unsupportable.
3. Look closely at the block logs. I have. They do not support your claims of guilt. And, it appears to me that they were 'reversed' or 'undone'.

Durova, I respect your detecting, really. But I think you are doing wikipedia an injustice by 'assuming' the checkuser established guilt, assuming the blocks establish guilt (and NEITHER of which were related to Conflict of Interest. It was not until it was made public that the IP was a Scientology proxy that COI was a possibility.), and then somehow linking them to other cases, which presumably DID furnish evidence of guilt.

I have absolutely no idea or opinion whether COFS is guilty of some form of COI editing. They very well may be, though they specifically denied any financial relationship. And I'm not going to make the mistake of assuming a couple of blocks for SOCKS is somehow proof of COI, and then burn someone at the stake. Even if I were to concede that the blocks identified some form of COI, before I moved for any formal action, I'd certainly want to review the block and the specific reasons for it. Mistakes are made. When someone's reputation is on the line, take a responsible course of action and verify previous 'convictions', before you potentially compound a mistake. There has been no user Rfc. There have been no WP:COIN judgments/sanctions. There has been no mediation... But I've said all this before.

I have been asking, from the beginning, for PROOF of misconduct. Instead of providing it, you point me to your essays, your barnstars, and prior cases. That doesn't fly with me, and I hope it won't fly with the arbitrators. And, given jpgordon's post above, I am reassured that it won't. Peace.Lsi john 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jpgordon, I apologize for Lsi john's violation of WP:AGF. I hope that someday, he finds it in himself to embrace that policy.--Fahrenheit451 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Y'know, that's twice here you've "apologized" for another editor. It's pretty transparently uncivil (and rather passive-aggressive) behavior, and doesn't help the process here one bit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is my response towards blatant uncivil conduct being directed at me, which does not help this process, either. If you can suggest something that will effectively get them to knock it off, I would be happy to implement it.--Fahrenheit451 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declined?

Lsi john you seem to have some pretty strong feelings about this case, since you are posting here so much it would probably be wise to actually participate in it. You were invited, and though I'm not sure if one can decline without arbcom consent, you did just that:

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)

Maybe you forgot, but you are indeed involved in the whole COFS/Scientology issue and have been for a while:
Lsi john on Misou from 23 April 2007 - 2. Anynobody 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, thank you for pointing that out. I do recall writing that, and it is still true. And, from the looks of the rest of the evidence section, nobody else has much to contribute either, other than opinions. You couldn't even get a grand jury to convene, let alone indict, with the 'evidence' that's there right now. It's a lot of "well of course we all know COFS is guilty, so lets talk about how we handle it".

Your's is mostly about Justanother, who isn't the focus of this arbcom. Durova's is mostly that she has already convicted COFS (because all COS editors have an inherent POV, and thus COI) and wants her ban imposed. And if you don't believe it you can read her dark side essay. F451's is more or less about banning anyone from wikipedia who ever knew a scientologist. All very nice, but no one has provided any 'evidence' to convict COFS of COI. Is there any such evidence? I don't know. I'm not the one who opened the arbcom. But from what I can tell, nobody seems to have any. Peace.Lsi john 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, your comment, "F451's is more or less about banning anyone from wikipedia who ever knew a scientologist" is a falsehood, and I regard that as a violation of WP:AGF, which you have seemed to do more than once on this discussion page. I am telling you to knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

F451, please refactor that comment to tone it down. John, please refrain from suppositions about my logic or motives. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john you are simply wrong about my motivations here. If you look around Wikipedia it's not too hard to find WP:COI situations causing problems in various subjects. Justanother happens to be the most prolific COI editor I have encountered regarding Scientology.

If you really think I and others are out to "get" Scientologists please gather some evidence and present it. Otherwise your allegations are starting to at best become WP:DISRUPT, at worst border on violations of WP:CIVIL or even WP:NPA. Not that your being disruptive, incivil or making personal attacks bothers me (frankly it shows your argument to be hollow), but the arbcom is bound to notice this type of behavior. Anynobody 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of copyrighted image

Anynobody, I may be making your point for you but I do not think that you should use the copyrighted image of the CoS on the project page. At least that is consistent with other discussions I have seen about its use. So what if the CoS has protected its images? Perhaps if those other religions had been born and created their images in modern times they would have done the same. In Christianity it is a sin to take the Lord's name in vain; in Scientology it is a "suppressive act" to alter Scientology and thereby misuse the symbol. The Scientologists simply take the logical step to make it official. And yes, F451, I know that this plays to one of your main complaints against the CoS and that you probably have something to say on that subject. Go ahead and say it, if you care to, but it is not really germane, IMO. --Justanother 02:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure it'll stay either, but it does refute claims about it being a church and thus not subject to the business (moneymaking) WP:COI. Churches don't copyright holy symbols. Anynobody 02:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does not refute that at all. It simply makes the point that they protect their images from misuse. So no-one is going to be hanging any Scientology symbols upside-down for the "Church of the Engram" (joke) --Justanother 02:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Both notions of copyrighted scriptures and trademarked religious symbols are contrary to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Also, it is a fallacy that such a practice prevents any misuse. However, this thread is a tangent from the purpose of the arbitration, so let's terminate this and return to the germane topic. :-)--Fahrenheit451 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be misinformed about what copyright is for. The concept is to preserve the rights of a holder in regard to profitability of their work. For example, if someone started up a Dianetics research center, and used the logo in their ads and materials for "tech" which they are selling without the CoS' permission that someone would be impacting commercial viability of said copyrighted material.

The essential statement of a fact is not something copyright was designed to suppress, and the use of copyright by the CoS does indicate a monetary concern on their part and I'll explain why. If I publish my own version of the Bible complete with cross on the cover and sell it, nobody can sue me for copyright infringement. If I were to publish a book about Scientology, be it pro or con in tone, and sell it the CoS could (and would) sue my lights out.

Since I drew a low resolution picture, noting it's copyright status, to be compared with other religious symbols as evidence in an arbcom, the commercial impact is nil. (Besides, could you imagine a court case about it. The CoS sues an internet artist for drawing a small picture of their symbol to show it's copyrighted while the Cross and Star of David aren't.)

Given the assessment of penalties by several courts over just that sort of litigious maneuver, the CoS would likely not sue over it since there is a pretty clear fair use defense. Anynobody 06:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"You seem to be misinformed about what copyright is for." You continue with your insistence that only you know the true meaning of anything. You show that here, you show that with the meaning of "spoofing" on your talk page ("Common sense says you don't know what spoofing means then,"), you took that stand from the very beginning with your objection to my interpretation of some relatively minor issue related to how the Barbara Schwarz article presented information. And you never ever change your mind no matter how many people chime in with "er, Anynobody . . .", witness the number of your attacks on me that have been deleted by multiple admins yet you persist in stalking me for imagined transgressions on my part. And you never take me up on my offers to enter WP:MedCab with you and you have rejected the efforts of multiple neutral parties to help you with any dispute you might have with me. I know that you are deaf to what I am saying (willfully or by your nature, I do not know) but even these minor issues are illustrative for myself and others. --Justanother 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the symbol is not copyrighted, it is trademarked. Also, I tend to agree with Justanother in that the three religions you compare Scientology to all originated millenia before U.S. copyright and trademark laws existed, hence making this arguement irrelevant. You can't make the comparison because none of these religions were able to avail themselves of the same laws at the time of their inception. Were they able to, I would submit that there would be far fewer variations of each religion then there are today.HubcapD 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you both want to expand the scope of this arbitration, this particular thread looks out of place here. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this particular discussion is outside the stated purpose of this discussion. That a religion can enforce a copyrighted scripture or trademarked symbol in the U.S. is entirely another matter. Let's keep this arbitration on topic.--Fahrenheit451 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My intent is to show that if the arbcom decides WP:COI only applies to business ventures then the case can still proceed since the CoS has monetary interests exactly like a business. Anynobody 22:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Examples Religion isn't actually listed as an example, and I don't mean to sound dickish but the policies and guidelines do not always get applied consistently by all editors. Since some of us are making a WP:COI argument related to a religion, which isn't listed, I wanted to make sure we can at least satisfy what's listed in the guideline. Anynobody 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that can be done without trying to give evidence that makes the Church look like it's "not really" a church.HubcapD 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I think I see the point you're attempting to make, I still think Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems would be a better venue. Unless someone on the arbitration committee is a United States lawyer (and I don't know that any are) then the issue seems outside both their mandate and their expertise. Durova^Charge! 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks

Part of the reason I posted the evidence of my neutrality is that I have never attacked anyone on Wikipedia that I know of. When I make edits I tend to spend so much time thinking about how my words will be interpreted that I forget to spell/grammar check. (Of course when I edit a (Main)space page I am more concerned with being technical than getting a message across.)

Because I am so concerned about how I am being interpreted it has occurred to me that I may have been unsuccessful sometimes. This is why I ask for proof of attacks from Justanother so I can understand what he considers to be an attack and hopefully not repeat the same error. I have asked him several times on several pages

If I was going to accuse an editor of attacking me or pushing a particular POV I would do them the courtesy of providing evidence to support my point.make an issue of his habit of attacks, I'd be sure to at least include 1 diff:[9]. Since I'm not, I won't include anything else on him attacking me, I'm just showing how it means more with evidence. If one wishes to accuse another editor of attacks in the process of an arbcom case can we agree that proof should be provided? Anynobody 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (modified by Anynobody 05:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Either you do or you don't, Anynobody. This looks like sniping. The arbitrators usually do pay attention to these talk pages. I suggest you submit this formally or strikethrough. Durova^Charge! 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sniping, I'm responding to this statement in the above section, ...witness the number of your attacks on me that have been deleted by multiple admins yet you persist in stalking me for imagined transgressions on my part. By submit it officially do you mean on the actual evidence page? Is it really out of line to request proof of these type of accusations? Anynobody 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's inconsistent to post evidence of incivility here in the same post where you say you aren't bringing it up. So if you want WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to be an issue at this arbitration go ahead and post evidence. You can pretty much assume your own conduct will be scrutinized on the same merits if you do so. Otherwise, if you really don't want to open that can of worms, I think it would be better to strikethrough the start of this thread. Bear in mind that accusations aren't meaningful unless they're supported by evidence and tu quoque isn't a defense. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You said the start of this thread, but I got the impression you meant what I actually crossed out. Anynobody 06:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks better, thanks. Durova^Charge! 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova

Thank you very much for posting evidence which can now be analyzed and discussed.

First, you have mis-stated my position on a couple of things and in doing so you have inadvertently created STRAW MAN arguments and then argued against them.

For clarity:

1. I did not draw the conclusion that COFS was innocent. In fact, I drew no conclusions about COFS in our discussions at all. Nor did I lead toward, suggest, or imply any conclusion. In fact, to my recollection, I have never addressed a single action (or edit) of COFS. If we start from 'innocent' until 'proven guilty', then we begin at innocent and we either prove guilt or we go nowhere. We don't 'arrive' at innocent.
2. I did not say that COFS is not using socks. I said that it has not been established that COFS is personally running sock accounts. The RFCU established that one or more common ips are involved with overlapping usage between some accounts, which could reasonably be multiple editors, sock accounts by one editor, or a combination of both. Though, given the network involved, checkuser might be able to establish that COFS is not a sock, if any two accounts used globally-different-IPs within a given time frame. (Unless we assume serious involvement at an IT level to modify routing).
3. I did not say that there is no COI. I said that there have been no WP:COIN sanctions nor WP:COI blocks. There have also been no WP:RFC or WP:MEDCAB actions. There has been virtually no WP:DR at all, other than numerous noisy AN/I posts. It has yet to be determined whether WP:COI is involved. Traditionally COI is applied to editors where employment or financial connections are established. COFS has clearly denied any financial relationship with the Church of Scientology.
4. I did not presume that "any shortened block was an invalid block". I looked at each on its own merits and provided rationale for each. I said that all but the 2x 3RR blocks appear to have simple and innocent explanations, and should not be used as evidence of a pattern of disruption for which blocks have failed to obtain results.

You are resting your entire case on 5 blocks and 1 checkuser. Given the number of times you've misunderstood me and now misquoted me on the evidence page, isn't it reasonable to suggest that we should 'double check' all the blocks for both validity and applicability to this situation?

When I look at them, I see:

1. One block that equates to the checkuser finding which established common IP usage. Checkuser didn't prove socks. Though just about everyone who is accusing COFS has mis-quoted checkuser as 'establishing socks usage'. We now know that the common IP is a proxy. And thus the multiple accounts could easily be multiple users.
2. One block where Justanother said in the CSN discussion that ChrisO blocked for removing things related to an RFC and then he subsequently unblocked. If COFS was removing links (per an RFC) that are still gone from the article today, then the removal of those links can now be assumed to be legitimate, and thus the block does not provide any evidence against COFS.
3. I see one where Misou was blocked (for 3RR?) and someone may have used the checkuser result to get COFS blocked too, which was subsequently unblocked per talkpage. An expanded 3RR block against Misou is not evidence against COFS. Though getting extra blocks to establish guilt is a common tactic.

That only leaves 2 blocks for 3RR. And I have not looked into those to see if they were gross violations or baiting which egged COFS into a violation. I have not looked, because 3RR is 3RR. But before we point to 2 blocks and say 'horrible user' we probably should look to see exactly what the 3RR blocks were for.

While I agree that 3RR is bad, why would you feel that 2 blocks for 3RR constitutes sufficient grounds for arbcom?

As I understood jpgordon's accept comment, one purpose of this arbcom is to determine whether or not to treat editors from COS proxies as if they are a single editor (socks) and as if they have COI even if they aren't employed.

You have said that Wikipedia should not 'carve out exceptions' for Scientology. And you are correct. And, just as true, Wikipedia should not make 'special rules' for Scientology.

Special Rule #1: Your assumption that a common (COS) gateway equates to COI.

Do all 'common gateways' equate to conflict of interest, or only Scientology gateways?

Does a Mason's shrine gateway represent COI for the Masons who edit through it? Should we ban Masons from editing any mason article or their own lodge article?

Does a KoC hall gateway represent COI for the Knights who edit through it?

Does the local Men's Atheletic Club gateway equate to COI for its members?

Does simple membership translate to COI? If so, should we ban Jews from editing Jewish articles? Do you see the slippery slope of a global ruling?

You are requiring of 'proof' that COS has computers open to the public (members). I feel this flies in the face of AGF. I submit that I could walk into my own church, as a well known member, and borrow their computer (or wi-fi) to edit. Would you presume I had COI in that case?

If I edit from a city library computer, does that automatically imply that I have COI for editing a library or city article? What about a college network? Starbucks? BDalton Books? Why would you assume public access for one and require proof from the other? What if COFS walked into the church and said "wiki articles on Scientology suck. They are incredibly unbalanced. I'm too poor to afford internet, but I'd like to edit them. Can I borrow a computer to help get them neutral?" Would that be COI?

Other than the proxy, there is no indication that COFS is using a Church computer. It is entirely possible that COFS is using a wi-fi connection from their own laptop. Without any IT information, why should we assume guilty/COI and not AGF that no COI exists? Why do you require that the COS IT prove that it has large computer labs? What about small labs? What about access for family members? What about access for volunteers? What about a lounge for special members of some particular standing or status? etc etc. Why have you passed the burden of proof of innocence back to the COS IT dept?

How would it look in a newspaper? That goes a bit too far. Anything can be made to look good or bad in a newspaper. If we start down that road, we're all in serious trouble. Take a look at the AN/I thread where they decided God and Jesus are sock and meat puppets and admins completely disrespected Christianity. Regardless of your beliefs, how do you think THAT would look in a newspaper? If we start making rules so that we "don't look bad in a newspaper" we might as well shut down Wikipedia. We'd need to get rid of anything that could offend anyone... and if we say our articles and discussions aren't offensive, then I say 'how it looks in a newspaper' is not relevant either.

Your generic statement: "because a person who edits Wikipedia in a problematic manner ...." is true. But it is generic. Are you accusing COFS of editing wikipedia in a problematic manner or simply making an unrelated statement? If you are accusing COFS of editing in a problematic manner, then we need evidence in order to evaluate your charge. By making a statement like this, you are again implying guilt and working backwards to justify your conclusion. Didn't you just recently tell Anynobody to either back up the charges or don't make them? That is exactly what I've been asking you to do from the start of this situation.

You are, to some extent, still proving by assertion. Peace.Lsi john 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and polish this and post it as evidence. Perhaps I did paint with too broad a brush when I summarized your position. Any errors were unintentional and I trust you'll correct them. Other than that I'll just say one thing: you point out that none of the COIN threads resulted in user blocks. That happened only because I assumed good faith in May and hoped that warnings would work when two other editors were calling for blocks, then because I assumed good faith in June and proposed a short topic ban when other editors were asking for a siteban. As I've stated already at this page, I think a monthlong user block would have withstood review in the latter situation. In May I considered following up after COFS returned and imposing a 72 hour block at the next sign of disruption. If you open that door I think the only thing it will end up demonstrating is that I've used a light touch here, perhaps lighter than I ought to have. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, you're completly missing the definition of evidence. What I wrote is an OPINION. It is an argument. It is not evidence. There is nothing to polish up. It explains that you have not provided any evidence. Take time to read it slowly. Peace.Lsi john 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, you cannot intuit what I have or haven't read and your presumptions about my mental processes consistently err on the side of bad faith. This is one example of a larger pattern which, if I present it to the Committee, would cast a very bad light on you. I offered to withhold that as a good faith gesture in the hope that some of your posts had been momentary lapses, yet this looks like you're challenging me to demonstrate my understanding of the meaning of evidence. I do, I can, and I will - including the e-mails - unless unless you stop this condescension. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, you asked me to post my 'argument' on the evidence page. It isn't evidence. Either you don't know what evidence is, or you were making fun of me. I chose GOOD FAITH and assumed you didn't know what evidence was.

I think your own words are aprapos here:

"You can pretty much assume your own conduct will be scrutinized on the same merits if you do so. Otherwise, if you really don't want to open that can of worms, I think it would be better to strikethrough the start of this thread. Bear in mind that accusations aren't meaningful unless they're supported by evidence and tu quoque isn't a defense."

The fact is, you did a poor job at WP:CSN as Chief Justice, when you rushed to judgment and failed to fully investigate or demand real evidence. Now we're here at arbitration, you're caught without any evidence to present, an arbitrator has felt it necessary to tell you so, and you want to divert attention towards me? Durova, there is no reason that an arbitrator should have had to specifically ask for evidence. You're an experienced admin. You've bragged about how good you are at arbitration. You should have had your evidence prepared. If I had rushed this to arbitration, fluffed it into something bigger than it was, and then had an arbitrator tell me that virtually all my evidence was unusable, I'd be seriously embarassed. and a lot more humble than you appear to be.

As for threatening to publicize our email conversations, well I think that publishing confidential email would cast you in a very poor light. But that is entirely up to you. There is nothing in them that I'm embarassed about. Again, you are implying that the email would condem me without presenting evidence. You called that proof by assertion, right?

You keep making these threats to 'take me down at arbcom'. You started making threats at WP:CSN, and you're still making them. This isn't about us. It's never been about us. The arbitrators aren't interested in us. Please stop. This is why I wanted to withdraw from the arbitration. This case is about COI and COFS and COS. Peace.Lsi john 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom handles specific types of evidence confidentially. Your e-mail will not be published. By all means, post your regarding my conduct. I look forward to the opportunity to clear my name of all suspicion. This is somewhat aside from the main substance of the case so it may be a few days before I enter evidence on this topic. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My counter proposal to you is to stop trying to make this about you and stick to the issue of COFS. Spend your energy getting real evidence that we can consider and stop asking me to distract the process. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinds of evidence

So far, the evidence I've seen hasn't really pointed in any useful directions, at least as far as my my key issues are concerned.

Those who want to support the position that users of the shared IPs are acting as, and should be treated as, single individuals, need to make their case by showing us diffs from the various users that make them essentially indistinguishable from one another. Have COFS, CSI LA, and Misou generally made the same sort of edits, or are they speaking in one voice? Could a reasonable person tell the difference between the editors if the names were stripped off the edit logs?

Those who want to demonstrate a detrimental conflict of interest need to show us specific edits that are contrary to WP:NPOV; those wanting to demonstrate the ability of these editors to rise above their Scientology affiliation and thus edit without such conflict should provide us with examples of such edits.

I'm generally inclined to disregard pretty much everything on the evidence page as argumentation; there's almost nothing that can be legitimately termed "evidence" there. On the evidence page, we don't care at all what your opinions are, and we don't care at all what your conclusions are if the evidence (in the form of diffs) is not there to support those conclusions.

So far, I haven't really seen anything to indicate more than garden-variety POV-pushing and true-believer variety conflict of interest. Perhaps it's too subtle for me to see, in which case the evidence needs to be presented. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, just out of curiosity, what if someone provides diffs which show two virtually identical types of edit comments, and then it turns out to be two people who represent the anti-scientology viewpoint. Would that be construed as evidence they are COI Socks, or would it refute any similar claims that COFS and Misou are speaking with the same voice? In my limited experience, I've seen the 'one voice' aspect from both pro- and anti- Scientology editors. Peace.Lsi john 01:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not answer hypotheticals like that. We'll deal with the evidence as it is presented. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, indeed. That is what I've been saying since the WP:CSN thread. To quote the old Wendy's commercial: "Where's the beef? Hello? I don't think there's anybody back there.. I really don't." Since I got involved at the WP:CSN level I've been saying: "quit saying Guilty and then pointing to that as evidence." Nobody has been listening. No RfC, No blocks for serious editing violations. No mediation. no WP:DR. Why are we here? Peace.Lsi john 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We're here partially because of suggestions that the multiple people using the single IPs have a sufficient synoptic point of view that they should be considered a single user (in the sense of previous arbitration rulings regarding "meatpuppetry", a term I prefer to avoid.) We're also here because we might need to clarify WP:COI. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two things I'd like to ask.

1. What is the process for changing future 'wording' from a checkuser request. So that 'confirmed' really says - related, in cases where its just a common IP and not confirmation of the same user?
2. Is there a way to propose closing this arbitration on lack of evidence? Or do the arbitrators do that on their own?

Peace.Lsi john 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You can make requests on the WT:RFCU talk page. They'll likely be ignored, since there's no way in the world to actually confirm two named editors are the same physical human being, and under existing policy, it doesn't matter whether they are the same physical human; that's not what Checkuser attempts to verify. Same virtual human suffices. The workshop page has a section for motions and requests for the parties. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, my question about checkuser responses was aimed at being clearer about what checkuser really provides. Quite a few people (including a respected admin in the evidence section) have mistakenly pointed to the checkuser as 'guilt of socks'. Peace.Lsi john 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively inexperienced, so let me as a noobish question, Jpgordon. If this is just garden variety POV pushing and true-believer COI, does that mean the community can deal with it in the normal way? For instance, could our administrators issue warnings and follow up with escalating blocks until the offenders shape up? Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's part of what we're here to determine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• jpgordon, I agree. I do not think that there is any issue here that cannot be worked out by simple WP:DR procedures like WP:3O and WP:RfC on a case by case basis. I, for one, realize that I am editing against the grain of inherent bias here and that I am editing from the unpopular minority viewpoint that Scientology has a lot to offer despite any (legitimate or illegitimate) criticism of it. I realize that most editors invested in the Scientology-series articles do not hold the same view as I. But all that really means is that the burden of effort is on me to 1) establish myself as a credible editor, and 2) use the WP:DR tools mentioned as necessary to support any controversial edits that I may make. I think I have done both of those to a degree never before seen by a Scientologist editor here and I urge all Scientologists that edit here to be willing to make the extra effort. I think the project is worth it and I think that the Scientology-series articles can be made a fitting part of this encyclopedia if we do not shut out the very people that can best contribute to the majority of the subject matter. Because, believe it or not (smile), there is a subject of Scientology separate from the criticisms of the CoS, Hubbard, and the material itself. --Justanother 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, you made it clear before I posted the evidence you want to analyze (which I have no problem at all with) that you (arbcom members) do a lot of research on your own. I feel that the "wrong-doing" is apparent to anyone who looks into it, so I didn't want to add a lot of commentary thus giving the impression I enjoy pointing out problems like this.

So that I can better prepare evidence, could you please be more specific about the research you do? (I'm not saying none was done, just that I assumed incorrectly about what I thought would be done). Anynobody 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We do as much as we want or as little as we want -- but I'm not going to hunt down diffs and things. I think you might have gotten confused when I was discussing running checkuser analyses independently; that's something only a few of us can do, so it makes sense that we do so. Anyone can read edits and find diffs. The box on the top of the evidence page explains, in a nutshell, what we're looking for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I think there is a deeper [[WP:COI] issue here as I stated in my evidence, and that is the inevitable puppetry situation one gets from corporate edits. The guiding principle here is one user, one voice. Allowing multiple users from a corporate IP address provides disproportionate weight to a corporate participation in Wikipedia. It is irrelevant if it is Enron or the Church of Scientology International doing the editing.--Fahrenheit451 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I strongly recommend you seek community support for your point of view; what you are asking for is a change in policy, which is not in ArbCom's remit. (Unless you think that it already is policy, in which case you can put pointers to statements and applications of the policy in the evidence.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, I did indeed confuse the WP:RFCU with evaluating the evidence provided. I've already started to explain what I meant with each diff. Anynobody 02:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will the ArbCom help with non-proxy related conflicts and behaviour issues?

jpgordon, I take it this RFAr was accepted for the purpose of ruling on the shared corporate proxy situation. Is the Committee at all interested in expanding the case into other aspects of the behaviour of the named parties? I've been considering submitting some evidence, and making some workshop proposal, specifically with regard to the old (and, the way it looks to me, by now quite personal) conflict between Anynobody and Justanother. In May, I tried, in fact, in to stitch up a voluntary agreement between them (also involving, but more marginally, Smee and Lsi John) to cool the situation. My suggestions, which I "spammed" identically to the four people, were rejected by Anynobody (full conversation here), though accepted by the other three. I had no power to enforce them, so it's quite tempting to try to cadge a lift off of this case in order to get some sort of ruling with teeth... But I quite understand if you guys are against expansions in general, or specifically in this case. I'm asking in advance because I don't want to waste your time or mine by offering evidence that's not of interest. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

• Well -- I'm the only one who gave a specific reason for accepting the case. Can the personal conflict between those parties be dealt with seperately, or is it part and parcel of the issues we're otherwise trying to deal with here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• The same two editors have a quarrel that's been dragging on at Anynobody's talk page. Jehochman and I have both tried to broker a compromise and help quell the matter, but it seems insoluble. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just tried again on his talk and got nowhere again. Anynobody has also refused 3rd party intervention on a number of occasions. He seems that he will only be satisfied if I am sanctioned in some major way and so long as that does not occur then he will not give it up; that is my take on it. --Justanother 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation

The fancy boxes and presentation being used in some of the evidence here is unacceptable; we don't need or want some evidence to look fancier than others. Please remove all the non-text elements (boxes, multi-column, things like that), or I will, and I might not be very good at it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hadn't noticed this thread sooner jpgordon, I was not avoiding it or anything like that.

As to the way I presented my evidence, you're welcome to make it look however you want it to:

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.

But please don't think I was doing it for any reason other than clarity and organization of what I thought would be a lot of information. Frankly, without the fancy presentation it'd be pretty darn confusing, so I'd pretty much have to stop presenting evidence.

The tone of your post indicates you wouldn't do a very good job, possibly on purpose because you strongly disagree with the format I chose. Please understand I researched the rules and guides to writing these, and no where did it say not to use special formatting, so if it is against your personal taste I can not help the violation because I don't know you. If it is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines then all I request is that a better effort to make it clear be made (like posting it where I found the quotation above on the page, that's not sarcasm but the plain truth). Anynobody 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If the inability to make your evidence stand out textually more than other evidence makes you stop presenting evidence, that's a comment about the quality of your evidence. I'll simply be removing all the markup, then. Thanks for your understanding. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Like I said, I didn't do a particularly good job -- I just cut out the non-essential noise. Spending five minutes looking at other evidence pages should have suggested to you that the customary presentation was simple and undecorated; this isn't a matter of policy, this is a matter of not annoying the arbitrators. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation 2

I know that jpgordon was not directing his above at me but I am taking the opportunity to remove from evidence anything that I had presented on that page that is not germane to the stated issue(s) being decided here. If something appears in the "Proposed final decision" section of the workshop page that warrants this material in evidence then I will re-enter it. I would also hope that I am setting an example for others here. Said example being, please use the evidence page to support the initial issue of COFS or to support additional claims made in the "Proposed final decision" section of the workshop page. Other use of the evidence page, i.e. attacking, counterattacking, and defending self, is questionable, at best. --Justanother 14:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick clarification of my personal position

I have a plane to catch but I want to quickly respond to Durova. My objection to her actions was simply in objecting to the fact that she did not send the issue back to WP:COIN after Jehochman (wrongly, IMO) suggested that SheffieldSteel take it to WP:CSN. I have already spoken on that and will not repeat myself. Personally, I have ALWAYS said, since the WP:RFCU, that COFS and the other editors from the proxy should straighten out what COI issues there may be. I had no problem with that happening at WP:COIN and, after reflection, I have no problem with it happening here. My problem was with Durova allowing it on WP:CSN without adequate prior WP:DR. --Justanother 10:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get Justanother?! A comment on Anynobody's and Durova's recent "evidence"

I gotta say that I am disappointed that it has come to this. Anyway, here goes:

This is interesting. This arbitration has the purpose to decide what, if any, conflict of interest issues are engendered by editors that use a proxy server that belongs to the Church of Scientology. Unfortunately, none of the principals, especially COFS, have been 'round recently. Anynobody, perhaps feeling that we'all are getting bored waiting, decided that this would be a good time to play yet another round of his favorite game, "Get Justanother". Nevermind that his spurious Justanother User RfC was deleted; nevermind that his subsequent sneaky "backdoor User RfC" on Justanother masquerading as an "Editor Review" on Anynobody himself was deleted as an "attack page"; nevermind that his "Justanother stalking page" was deleted; never mind that he has been warned to stop trolling Justanother. And those are just the easy finds off the top of my head.

Let's see what he has come up with this time. Hmmm, by some skewed accounting method 73% of Justanother's edits are Scientology-related. Not true but even if it were, so what? Many, if not most, editors here concentrate on their area of interest and expertise. Of course if we head it "Accounts which focus on a pro-Scientology POV increase the amount of time neutral editors must spend to properly edit related articles" maybe someone will think it means something. Now what is that next heading; "Examples of Scientologists harassing neutral admins and editors"? OK, and look, there is Justanother again. Nevermind that all he did was politely ask/inform Evula that he was going to solicit some 3rd opinions, something Evula seemed to have no problem with. Put it under that heading and maybe it will mean something to someone. And it continues with inappropriate and persistent requests for checkuser on Justanother. It continues with attempting to make Justanother the star of this show.

As for Durova, well I am almost sorry somewhat surprised to say but she has not yet exhausted all my AGF with her and I hesitate to discuss her in the same pixelated breaths as Anynobody. Suffice it to say that her "Justanother is a hypocrite" is rather lame, with lines taken out of context and one ("evil") that she is clearly misinterpreting, a common failing on her part, I fear; at least in my experience. But my AGF for her is just that she thinks she is doing her "wiki-sluething" thing when all she is actually doing is oversimplifying a complex situation to fit her premade mold and misinterpreting the words of other editors to fit her fixed ideas. --Justanother 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• (Note, editing in Justanother's section per WP:IAR.) Anynobody's editor-review-slash-attack-page which is mentioned above can be consulted, by admins only, here. Rather confusingly, Anynobody yesterday created a new editor review of the same name, Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody. That's where the link in the deletion log leads now, but it's not the attack page, just an ordinary review. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Thanks Bishonen. AN should probably retitle his current one as Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody (resubmitted) or some such but the link in the deletion log would still likely not point at the attack page without an admin doing some work that may not be worth the effort. I will leave that decision up to any interested admin. --Justanother 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, you are of course welcome to present evidence to refute mine. Anynobody 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd appreciate if you or someone else with access would make the information available to everyone here. Honestly I set up that ER after Bishonen deleted the WP:RFC/U that Smee and myself set up. I wanted to find out if had been wrong the whole time and Bishonen had known something I didn't as an experienced admin I tried to be as honest and neutral about what the problems I perceived which led to the deleted RFC/U were. Given the effort I put into it for the tone not to sound like an attack on anyone I'd honestly like to know which parts were especially bad/good whatever. Anynobody 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Jehochman vs. Justanother on the evidence page STRICKEN

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence#Justanother has a COI related to Scientology, I said that I will not fill the evidence page with off-topic material so I will make my comment here. Jehochman, what are you doing? You find a post from what, 8 - 9 months ago that was perhaps not the brightest post by a fairly new editor (me) but Wikipediatrix (at the time, ask her what she thinks now, 8 months later) made more of than it deserved and you serve that up on the evidence page now?! What is that in support of? Nanny nanny boo boo? In that post I am saying that TRUTH about the history of psychiatry is absent from the article and, if Terryeo felt like contributing to the project (instead of getting himself in trouble on talk pages and eventually banned), it would be nice if he contributed in that fashion. And, given Terryeo's history of going overboard, I advised him to take it slow and rely on non-CCHR material as CCHR material would be challenged. QED. BFD. You might find a remark by BTfromLA, a respected (if critical - laff) editor in the Scientology articles, about my influence on Terryeo prior to his ban of note, here (Terryeo was banned while I was on two-week holiday). What is with this out-dated, out of context, and misrepresented "evidence"? --Justanother 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that that comment on my part sparked quite a loooooooooong discussion between BTfromLA, Wikipediatrix, and myself at User talk:BTfromLA/archive#Terryeo's ban. I think that my good faith is evident in that discussion. --Justanother 04:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious Justanother, what is your problem with Jehochman's neutrality? I went over his main namespace edits for approximately the last year and could only find one article related to Scientology he edited a few times, Keith Henson (and I mean literally a few as in less than five or six). The only other article I noticed, even indirectly related to the subject, were a few other edits to Psychotherapy.

I can understand why you, in your friend or foe mindset, think I'm not discussing your WP:COI in an WP:AGF manner based on some parts of my edit history. Why would you assume Jehochman is out to say you have a COI for anything other than honest feedback? (Latest Jehochman vs. Justanother on the evidence page...this is what I mean by the friend/foe mentality) Anynobody 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AN, I pass. I will reply to Jehochman or another. I just tried (again) on your talk page to find common ground with you but I am not sure we can. Sorry. --Justanother 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, if Wikipediatrix misunderstood things, then please ask her to post a clarification. If you were wrong, simply say so and explain what you've done (or will do) differently. From the tone of your recent edits, it doesn't seem that your editing has become less tendentious. Keep in mind that this evidence was posted first, but more is coming, and I plan to show evidence about people on both sides of this dispute, so please don't feel singled out. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, taking one old talk page post by me out of my, what? 8000 posts, and then stating that that edit proves conclusively that I have a COI is, sorry to be blunt, just plain silly. I was not "wrong" and if you read the loooong conversation I link to above then, I think, my good faith is evident. I was fairly new and I trying to help an editor that was on the path to being thrown off the site to redirect his efforts. I was called into question and I explained myself AT THE TIME. This business of dragging up old talk page comments out-of-context and irregardless of the fact that they were addressed at the time they occurred is BOGUS. And if this is an example of "wiki-sleuthing" then there are serious BOGUSITY issues with that activity. Hopefully you can do better. And although I strongly agree with the principles of the WP:TE essay in that one should edit articles in an NPOV fashion and not use this project for POV-pushing, I would like you to point at any policy that says that I should not be STRONGLY PARTISAN in defending myself (or anyone else) against bogus attacks. Let me state this clearly, I am strongly partisan in favor of myself and my belief that I have something to contribute to this project and that I have done little "wrong" and that any one of my mainspace edits will stand any level of scrutiny. I challenge you, Jehochman (or anyone else), CHALLENGE YOU!, to prove my alleged COI using my mainspace edits. Because that is what COI is about and this business of searching out talk page edits that you don't like is, frankly, a crock. --Justanother 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for refactoring and clarity

The usual way to express changes of heart at arbitration is by striking through and refactoring one's statements. When an editor deletes evidence or overwrites it with something different that affects other presentations and can render them meaningless, since those other editors' statements may specifically reference something that later vanishes from the page. It's particularly burdensome on other named parties to move evidence to a talk page with a caveat that the material may be reinserted as evidence during the case's voting phase: should other named parties respond or not?

I respectfully request that Justanother abide by standard practice and clarify what is or isn't under challenge here. Durova^Charge! 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel it is appropriate to fill the evidence page with accusations and counter-accusations and defenses against counter-accusations and rebuttals to defenses against counter-accusations . . . ad nauseum. Especially when none of the material is germane to anything that this arbitration is addressing or that has been proposed in the workshop as a final decision. Nor do I think it helps to fill the evidence page with struck-out versions of same. I regret having followed others into playing that game and I removed my comments to a more appropriate place, here. I will not "attack" other editors by name nor defend myself from their "attacks" on the evidence page unless such attacks or defense directly relate to something that this arbitration is addressing and my "evidence" serves the purpose of "evidence", not the purpose of defamation of others or justification of self. I am sincerely tired of the cut-throat tactics of going after each other that are so common here on Wikipedia. And I rarely START such though I must admit that I respond in kind and often with vigor. I will do as you ask if a non-involved party (preferably one of the arbs) seconds you. --Justanother 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples where I've done strikethroughs of my own statements at arbitration are Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gundagai_editors#Statement_by_User:Durova and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova. I hope this demonstrates that my request is made in good faith; a full read of the Gundagai case should eliminate any doubts. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More with the one-sided misinterpretation of out-of-context, cherry-picked, talk space remarks, I see. Durova, are you consciously only cherry-picking those few remarks that seem to support your preconceived and prejudged notions about me? Because you make no effort to present any of the remarks from the same source, User:Justanother/writeup, that speak to the fact that I act in good faith here. Remarks like:

"What we want to have in the articles is a coherent presentation of Scn and a coherent presentation of the controvery surrounding it."

"Don't be afraid to have a POV; just make sure that you edit fairly and verifiably and affort others the same right."

"When you go in to edit, don't cut out material that you don't like. Instead find the grain of truth that usually lies inside what you consider a misrepresentation, research that truth, and present it fairly."

Durova, do you feel that you are the prosecutor and it is your job to present a one-sided view to the court? I thought that "court" was what we were NOT doing here. --Justanother 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justanother's clarification section

Warning - According to one editor (here) reading User:Justanother's posts may cause you to become brainwashed, presumably because these posts contain Secret Subliminal Scientology Mojo ®.

READ AT YOUR OWN RISK --Justanother 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Wikisleuth has been busy! OK, I have no problem with my words being presented here. I have done nothing untoward. I will make some clarifications as I see fit.

• I have long and steadily maintained that the Scientology articles have been dominated by alt.religion.scientology regulars, other off-wiki opponents of Scientology, and their supporters. The Scientology articles are one-sided. It is possible that inherent bias due to the internet meme nature of criticism of Scientology and the notable number of influential admins/editors here that, even if they are not currently active editors in the series, hold strong anti-Scientology views, possible that those factors have blinded the project to the one-sidedness. OK. But any Scientologist that sees these articles is, IMO and in my experience, dismayed by the one-sidedness. It is also a fact that, for the huge part, these critics are "experts" only in the criticism of Scientology, and have little knowledge of the subject of Scientology. It is my hope that, in the best interests of this project, knowledgeable Scientologists add balance and truth to these articles. It is my hope that I can set an example and provide guidance on the correct way to do that. Not that I have been perfect but that I learn from my errors.
• When I started here I self-identified as an ex-Scientologist because that is what I considered myself. Over the course of editing here, I was revitalized as a Scientologist and became active again and removed the "ex" from my self-description.
• I invite and urge all interested parties to read my materials, the pre-blanking version of my user page and especially User:Justanother/writeup and tell me what you think. That writeup page is a rough list of thoughts and lessons learned but I think that it veritably reeks of good faith and support of this project.
• Durova's offer - So why do I not take Durova up on her offer to change this arbitration into the longest, most unproductive and vituperative waste of time that Wikipedia has seen (assuming I have the interest, time, or energy to hold up my end of it)? One word. Template:Sofixit. It is not a situation for me and Durova and the arbitrators and the community to pontificate over as nauseum; it is simply a situation to be fixed and my hat writeup goes a lot further toward fixing it than Durova's suggestion. --Justanother 12:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Other questions? --Justanother 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions/comments from others

I would like to keep the above section clear for my clarifications. I think that I am entitled to this consideration as I wager that the bulk of the evidence section is about me (aw shucks, guys!)

I know you have long maintained that anti-Scientologists have dominated the articles. What you need to do is present evidence in support of that claim. WP:AGF requires us to suppose that's a misunderstanding on your part unless you can demonstrate otherwise, and your unsupported arguments that Jehochman and I have acted out of bias tell me you're prone to that sort of mistake. Either way, tu quoque is not a defense and I wonder why you didn't just put up a few pages up for article content WP:RFC last year. If I need to present additional evidence regarding trustworthiness I can go into the details of your interactions with a respected administrator last fall. You've made a lot of complaints about the validity of the checkuser result and attempted to shift the burden of evidence. Well, now I've posted some and there's more in preparation.

What I'm asking you to consider while arbitration remains underway is that perhaps - even with good intentions - you've misunderstood the verifiability, not truth clause at WP:V and the Wikipedia is not a battleground clause at WP:NOT. Your actions raise my eyebrow in particular with regard to WP:MEAT and I highlighted passages which relate to that. I don't think I've hidden anything, though, unless it's to downplay your history of edit warring and POV. You're apt to suggest that other editors possess unacknowledged bias. Could that be true of you as well? Durova^Charge! 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We all have bias, Durova. This would be a good chance for you to back away from making this arbitration about me. Do you care to back away from that? I have not made it about you. I have continued to assume good faith with you but I am afraid that I have little left. Just enough to ask you nicely to please reconsider what you are doing on the evidence page. Thanks. --Justanother 17:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I prefer to wait until the dispute's main participants submit evidence and then supplement gaps in their presentations. Since little evidence had been forthcoming and there was a motion to close the case on that basis, I've taken on a larger share of work. My research indicates that this case has merit. Other portions of evidence that have less to do with you are in preparation. If you'd like to focus on opponents of Scientology, please present specifics in your evidence. Since you were involved as events unvolded it should be quite a bit easier for you to prepare 40 links and diffs, which would provide leads for additional research. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, you are not addressing my request. Let me make it as clear as I can. I would like you to remove or strike out the material that you presented on me on the Evidence page. I ask you to do that because my conduct is not the subject of this arbitration. Will you please do that? Thank you. --Justanother 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As named parties all of our conduct is open to examination. Your previous post hints that you would present evidence about me. I believe my actions will hold up to scrutiny and if I'm mistaken about that I welcome correction from the Committee. What it seems to me, though, is that your primary grievance has to do with some editors who've worked on Scientology-related articles. So far you've provided very little by way of specifics there so the first door I went through was the one you opened. The current shape of my evidence reflects not bias but the effort involved in reviewing several thousand edits that span eleven months, and since you're an adamant defender of WP:AGF I trust you'll need no further assurance of my neutrality before you test my willingness to follow up on both sides. Please post your evidence of anti-Scientology POV pushing. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<< I am not particularly interested in gathering and presenting evidence about you though I will scrutinize your presentation on me mercilessly, and, believe me, it does not stand up to scrutiny. So if a presentation of bogus evidence on your part reflects badly on you then that will be the extent of my evidence against you. Your evidence is bogus and an insult to the reader's intelligence and that is clearly demonstrated with your ludicrous mention of my "secret chat room"; a feature of the Wiki software that I found interesting and played around with a bit in a spirit of fun. Your evidence is one-sided and out-of-context and I clearly show that in my post in the preceding section. You have not addressed my question there about what appears to be a misapprehension on the part of one of us as to whether this is an adversial proceeding. You seem to be proceeding as if it were. I am not here to sort out my "primary grievance". Where DO you come up with your ideas? I am simply looking to sort out the COI issues of the subject editors from the CoS proxy; the ostensible purpose of this arbitration. You seem to have quite a different agenda which revolves around attacking me for questioning your use of the WP:CSN board. If you would like to get back on track and address what this arbitration is supposed to be about then I again invite you to remove or strike out the extraneous evidence that calls my conduct into question. Not because I am afraid of scrutiny but because I hate time-wasting *stuff*. --Justanother 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly predictable that you don't like Durova's evidence. Your edit history shows that you tendentiously defend Scientology and pro-Scientology editors from criticism, whether that criticism is meritorious or not. You could help your own cause if you could point to some edits where you say, "You're right, I was wrong. Sorry about that, I've learned my lesson." Nobody is right 100% of the time, but from the most recent 1000 edits you've made, which I've reviewed, I can't find any evidence of you showing flexibility or compromising to achieve consensus. That's rather strange. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply # 1) "Your edit history shows that you tendentiously defend Scientology and pro-Scientology editors from criticism, whether that criticism is meritorious or not." - It *might* "help your own cause if you could point to some edits" that support your accusation. but then again, if your ability to interpret edits and context is on a par with Durova's, it *might* not. And I can say that my next response will speak to that very point. --Justanother 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply # 2) "from the most recent 1000 edits you've made, which I've reviewed, I can't find any evidence of you showing flexibility or compromising to achieve consensus." - Great bit of "sleuthing" there, Jehochman. HOW ABOUT THE ONE OF THE VERY LAST TIMES I EDITED THE SCIENTOLOGY ARTICLE! Please see Talk:Scientology#Complete rewrite of the Scientology WP:LEAD and some following topics on that talk page. I worked with a Scientologist but mostly with a number of editors (especially User:BTfromLA) that would likely say they are critical of Scientology in a spirit of co-ooperation to rewrite the lead paragraph of the article, leading one editor to post on my talk page under the topic Thanks for your contributions and Sorry for my ignorance:

"Sorry, that I mistrusted all your contributions so badly that I didn't even read some of them fully. I think your contribution was an improvement here. I shouldn't have started arguing! As I began to contribute to the Scientology article, myself and my contributions were attacked in a highly uncivil way and I started to think in "good/bad editors" categories. I will try to be more carefull in my "do-not-assume-good-faith judgements" to editors which oppose my "POV/NPOV". Hope we can stay civil on controversial topics although we may have different POV's on this subject. -- Stan _talk 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)"

How could you miss that, Jehochman? Oh, and let me repeat that my attitude with good-faith editors on both sides of the fence is quite different from my attitude with those that pursue unwarranted attacks on me to justify themselves or vindicate their mentor or because of bias against Scientology or for whatever reason. My patience with such only goes so far and then I tend to tear my shirt (see User:JustaHulk) but don't worry, the pills are tin-foil hat is working and I think that I will be able to control the urge to transform. Bottom line for you, Jehochman, please stop throwing around unsupported and unsupportable accusations. --Justanother 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, if you claim my actions are persecutory then that will open the door for me to detail your reactions to SlimVirgin. That would demonstrate how you have a history of over-the-top responses to routine administrative action, which I would supplement with evidence of my own fairness and neutrality. Naturally my evidence has focused on the portion of your contributions that appears to be at variance with site standards: I don't think X number of good edits gives anyone a licence to violate policy. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The few times that I have violated policy I have been corrected and made corrections on my own. I could care less about bringing up SlimVirgin or anything else. Don't threaten me, please, your threats are meaningless and that one only shows me that you are on the verge of digging your hole of misinterpretation deeper. This arb is not about me; this arb is not about you. Get over yourself, Durova, and let's keep this on track. --Justanother 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor that uncivil response. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, which part do you object to? I will see if I can clarify it for you. --Justanother 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everything after the first two sentences was uncivil. The way I view this discussion, you suggested you might pursue an argument that would open the door to additional adverse evidence against you, so I informed you in advance of where that would probably lead. You also complained that my evidence was unduly focused on you so I suggested how you could help balance things. Common sense tells me there probably has been some anti-Scientology POV pushing in Wikipedia article space. I've been waiting since the first COIN thread in May for you to substantiate that with any leads at all. Arbitration is the best opportunity you'll ever have for resolving that problem, if it really does exist, but I don't do favors for people who are rude to me: from now on, if you neglect your opportunity to prove your case that's your problem. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

<< Few points of interest in that post,

1) Telling you to not threaten me is uncivil?

2) I don't recall asking you to do me any favors. I also doubt that you were just about ready to make my day by posting about all the inappropriate activity by "anti-Scientologists" that has taken place in the Scientology articles since the start of Wikipedia and I blew it by being rude. I doubt that. BUT, if you have some material ready and it is relevant to this arbitration (BIG IF) then it is the best interest of the project to post it and if you are withholdng it for a petty reason then shame on you.

3) Durova, you continue to try to change the subject of this arbitration. This is about a case of a number of editors editing from Church of Scientology-owned IP addresses. I really wish that you would stay on-topic and quit wasting my time and, perhaps, the time of others.

I will address why I am not taking Durova up on her off-topic suggestion perhaps later and in my clarification section above. --Justanother 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents here. I am a Scientologist. As regards to Justanother's "hat writeup", I'm actually glad I found the thing, and I would suggest it be read by any Scientologist who would come here to edit. Rather than be an attempt on his part to "recruit" more Scientologists to edit, it seems to speak to the problem wikipedia seems to run into with a number of editors who are Scientologists: they see what they consider to be lies and distortions and edit away without regard to whether or not the article is properly sourced, or to whatever consensus has taken place.

The guy didn't write a screed saying "delete anything bad about the church!" or "harrass any anti-Scientologist editors!". He wrote a guide that helps avoid the pitfalls which make problems for other editors here.

Well, them's my two bits. Take 'em for what they're worth.HubcapD 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

HubcapD, I feel sorry for the Scientologists. These articles are highly negative and once we finally convince the pro-Scientology editorsto disengage from fighting the anti-Scientologists, we should look at the neutrality of the articles and see if they can be improved. It's absolutely amazing that we are spending so much time here when we could be fixing the articles instead. If the other side uses dirty tactics, don't respond in kind. Take the articles to WP:RFC and try to draw in neutral editors to help you. You need a consensus to make changes stick. Unfortunately, a consensus of declared Scientologists isn't a Wikipedia consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You know Durova, if you could get over attacking me, you would likely see that we are saying the same thing and hold the same views (though I might say "once we finally convince the anti-Scientology editors to stop trying to have the Scientologists thrown off this site"). You have already alluded to such elsewhere. I have not entered one word of "evidence" against you or Jehochman (or have removed those that I did enter in a knee-jerk reaction) although you and he (mostly you, Durova) have both attacked me without cause on the evidence page. I really, truly think that you are miffed that I challenged you on the WP:CSN page and now you are all about "clearing your name" (which you have mentioned at least three times in these arb pages - see "I hope to clear my name of some of the accusations that have been made against me recently" above for one) and I think that you are perverting this arbitration to that end and one way that you might feel that you have cleared your name is if you have discredited me. That is why I say "get over" *it*. You just entered another whole bunch of *stuff* on the talk page. You, Durova, are the problem here. I just really really wish that someone that you respect would send you a clue and that we could get this back on track. --Justanother 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from evidence page

Misou, you may want to create your own section for evidence. I didn't want to be that presumptuous on your behalf so I've placed it here pending whatever you decide to do. Anynobody 07:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The abbreviation for Church of Scientology is "CoS", not "COFS". Google it. Misou 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this Google you speak of? Church of Scientology (COFS) may not be the official abbreviation, but it's highly suggestive to the ordinary editor. These articles are contentious enough. We don't need to make choices, such as usernames, that inflame the controversy. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, it's Newyorkbrad's function to move evidence. Please leave that up to him with anything other than your own posts. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Misou, if you have a problem with COFS being interpreted as Church of Scientology, perhaps you could take it up with the person who changed the CofS page into a disambiguation page. Can anyone guess who it is? No peeking! Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same mistake

Misou has made the same mistake again and posted in my section. Rather than move the comments here I created an evidence section for him. Anynobody 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatcha talking 'bout, man? Misou 01:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on your talk page, User talk:Misou #Please stop ignoring procedures on the arbcom evidence page. I'd appreciate it if you'd move your comments to your own section. Anynobody 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabulation

This is easier than writing a paragraph to summarize what's been going on as the numbers and diffs speak for themselves.

# of times Misou has added comments to another editor's evidence	# of times Misou has been advised, asked, or reminded not to do so again
5 4 31 2 1	4 (Including this one) 3 2 1
1 (There were two edits in this diff by Misou to this section I'm counting them as one overall instance.)

Anynobody 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting tool for anonymous IP edit history

Wikiscanner: List anonymous wikipedia edits from interesting organizations. One of the predefined options is for three CoS IP ranges. (There are more IP blocks, but I haven't checked them against the list.) AndroidCat 14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, 48 edits in Scientology related articles in more than four years. Wow! That's almost one per month!!! Which brings us back to the question. Should Scientologists be allowed to edit about subjects they know something about? Misou 17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is about as "interesting" as the probability of edits to Mormon-related articles coming from Utah. Lots of individual citizens could be editing from those IPs on their own, as is their right. wikipediatrix 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the magical proxy server on official Church of Scientology IP addresses open to all public Scientologists when they feel like editing Wiki articles on Scientology—and not much else. AndroidCat 21:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And you know this to be a fact because....? wikipediatrix 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Which part? AndroidCat 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Should Scientologists be allowed to edit about subjects they know something about? is not the question so much as it is the straw man. It has not been proposed as a finding of fact, principle, temporary injunction, or remedy in this case. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment for Sheffi

(Reminder, this is not about Misou, but about COFS. And you DID falsify the quote while pretending to improve the format. Misou 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

The case is about what the arbitrators decide it's about. I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

And considering all the criticism that has been directed at other editors from pro-Scientology editors (which can be fairly summarised as, "how can you say this? you do not know what you are talking about!") I really think you ought to look a bit more carefully at the source before making such accusations. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misous objection against the comments made by Stan En

Not really too much OR, just interesting flights of fantasy, IMHO. But you say there are 10 pro-Scientology editors on WP. Please list them, I am interested. Misou 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It was just an estimation. The accuracy isn't too important because it would show the same results of impossibility anyway. By the way, so higher the count of pro-scientology editors so lower the probability for my assumption(that its impossible that 5 of them edited from one proxy). The numbers I used presented you in the most positive lights possible. You really want me to downgrade this count ? -- Stan _talk 05:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

and I also used very low estimation by general internet users and high estimations for your-freedom.net wich actually helped you and precludes the possibility to misrepresent your case. -- Stan _talk 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)