This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

COFS is away until July 14

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Can we get a statement from COFS? It's seven days later, and we've heard nothing from the central party. Jehochman ^Talk 06:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's now July 22, but still no statement from COFS. The user page used to say July 14, and some time after that it was updated to say the 20th. Jehochman ^Talk 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Some things take longer. I arrived back home very late last night and haven't had a chance to look at anything bar my emails, which included several invites to show up here and say something. I am somewhat interested in this discussion here and will say something intelligent a soon as possible. From glancing over some things here I note that it is still not clear what this arbitration is about and it might be helpful if Durova or an ArbCom member could actually define what we are talking about here and on what exactly I am supposed to say something. I am aware that this is not a "court" but "arbitration" indicates we have something to arbitrate about. Yet this opportunity is being abused for some more POV pushing by the usual people and no actual case seems to have been stated. Or did I miss it in all the noise? COFS 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It is about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and whether your editing violates that policy. Fred Bauder 18:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. As I understand Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is not a policy but a guideline. It makes sense that it is a guideline as most of the people competently contributing to Wikipedia have some kind of expertise in what they are writing about. This is no different in articles related to Scientology. Wikipedians who studied Scientology and have lived being Scientologists do have naturally more experience in the subject than those who are reading second-hand news or rely on anti-Scientology sources, specifically those anonymous ones only existing on the internet. The case at hand unfortunately proves that minority members - that is the Scientologists - are not protected at all by Wikipedia policy, to the contrary this board so far allowed a lot of dirty laundry washing not related to the case. Therefore I am going to take up those "evidences" which are related to the case and I will not go into the ugly fingerpointing on these pages unless I am or are being accused to be a party to it. I am taking them up in the other sections of this page. This here is about myself and a bit of background.

For anyone here to understand: I am speaking for myself not as a representative of Scientology or the Church of Scientology. I do not have such function nor competence to do so. I am not an organization but an individual with a job and family who also cannot spend endless hours reading unrelated accusations and the noise around them.

I am using various ISPs for internet access and from there a proxy which is run by the Church of Scientology which gives access to materials or other websites not available in this form otherwise. I could also not use it and might as well chose not to (as other Scientologists presumably do). Just as I could have chosen not to state my religious affiliation or any .

On whether I have an Conflict of Interest. I don't, I have a viewpoint on the matter as everybody else does. The choice of my user name was an arbitrary idea when registering. It could have been anything else and if need be I could just re-register or change the user name. For me this has no significance. Also I have no advantages (aka "interest") nor disadvantages editing those articles except for the satisfaction of reading sound encyclopedic entries. I have access to the history and materials of the Church of Scientology like anyone else who bothers to take a look or ask for material. And certainly I do know how Scientology and how the Church of Scientology structure works. From this knowledge I have a point of view on the subject which is different to what I think about other Wikipedians who seem to have some advantages from editing in this area, be it to be accepted in the "anti-Scientology" or "ex-Scientologist" group or be it to push forward a personal, political, anti-religious or religious campaign or those who seem to be stuck in the thought that the "big bad church of scientology" tries to secretly take over the internet or some such nonsense. I'll get to those later.

This is my statement after glancing over all the comments given on the subject. COFS 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I got down to Principle 16) on this page and have not started on the others. Will be back tomorrow. COFS 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Cross-posted from my talkpage by the Clerk. In the context of an arbitration case this one-week delay should not be problematic. Newyorkbrad 13:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually her user pages says July 20. Misou 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Motion to close due to lack of evidence

2) Motion to close this arbitration due to lack of evidence. The administrator who brought the arbitration had ample time to prepare the case prior to arbitration. The case was already at WP:CSN and all of the evidence should have been there already. When the request for arbitration was opened there were numerous allegations of violations of MEAT, CIVIL etc. To date, no substantial evidence of any kind has been brought forward to support those charges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some comments: Are we allowed to use statements within this forum as evidence for the present case? -- yes, indeed. ArbCom can, and will, consider behavior occurring during the course of this arbitration case; more than once, such behavior has been the primary reason for the final decision. As far as the motion is concerned, ArbCom is in no rush; we're quite willing to wait and watch as evidence is assembled. There is no "defense", there are no "pleas"; this isn't a legal proceeding, and ArbCom is not bound by any particular formal structure. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Much too soon to consider something like this. We take a case if we see a problem that needs to be addressed. Not too likely to drop it merely because the case is not well stated. ArbCom has not started evaluating the case yet. When we do, we will consider evidence placed on the case and also we look into the editing history of the parties involved before and during the case. Then we address the problem with remedies. FloNight 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

This case was brought to arbitration prematurely. There has been no RfC, no medcab, no COIN blocks or sanctions. There should have been ample evidence from the WP:CSN case, but there was none. Peace. Lsi john 11:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Strong oppose - we need clarification of how to handle this situation. There are multiple disruptive editors on both sides of the dispute who have frustrated WP:COIN and WP:CSN with endless wikilawyering. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, I agree that there is a problem. And perhaps one 'ruling' or 'determination' that you could suggest is that the committee find "there is not a 'good' method already in place to handle these situations". However, the violations you imply should be handled by regular dispute resolution. If there is evidence of this 'disruption' it should have been presented and it has not been. The only conclusion I can reach is that this is because the behavior is never 'sufficient' to really be called disruptive, but is, instead, a slow steady POV nagging pain in the *** with one or both sides trying to 'game' the system and get an advantage. (By the way, there is currently a proposal being drafted to handle situations similar to this, using 'article supervision', where GoodFaith is NOT assumed and a VERY SHORT LEASH is used for CIVIL and POV compliance. But it is preliminary and has not yet been formally proposed.) Peace. Lsi john 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, that sort of trash talk without evidence is exactly why this action should be closed and those editors and admins that post such bad faith trash should be strongly cautioned to desist. This was originally started by User:SheffieldSteel on WP:COIN as a simple question about COI that is worth discussing on that forum. It was you, Jehochman, who improperly suggested that it be brought to WP:CSN and it was your mentor, User:Durova who improperly allowed it to remain there and who elevated it to this forum. Both of you have had ample opportunity to present evidence against COFS to support your unfounded claims of disruption or WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT and you have not come up with any. All due respect but perhaps this is a good time to "Put up or shut up". -- Justanother 14:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) -- Justanother 14:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Are we allowed to use statements within this forum as evidence for the present case? Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence of what? COFS has not yet commented here. Nor have any other of the editors from the proxy. Evidence of what? That User:Justanother is a WP:DICK? I don't think my comments are especially "dickish". I stand by my comments; do what you will with them. I cannot speak for Lsi john, of course. -- Justanother 15:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I want to wait for COFS to respond before investing a lot of time to compile evidence. As the central party, how COFS responds could change the direction of this case. I'd rather not make a case against you, Justanother. Perhaps you want to strike or refactor some of what you wrote above. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, I am just tired of the the accusations without proof. You could have simply left it as "we need clarification of how to handle this situation" referring to the proxy issue. I agree. I think that that discussion should have taken place on WP:COIN and I think that it still should. You did not need to add ambiguous complaints against a large number of unamed editors. That was uncalled for and you should be the one considering striking or refactoring! -- Justanother 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(outdent) You might want to refactor generate evidence as I doubt you truly intend to 'generate' any evidence. As for waiting for COFS to respond; Please look at the definition of 'respond'. If you can't be bothered to 'locate' evidence, what 'response' do you expect from COFS? In a court case, prosecution goes first, defense responds. Why do you want this process to be different? The prosecution has failed to make a prima facie case. No response from the defense is even necessary at this point. Peace. Lsi john 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A case was filed. COFS hasn't responded yet, per the clerk's note. After COFS responds, we'll see what evidence is necessary. Maybe COFS will admit there's a problem and want to work towards solving it. I'd like nothing more than to end this case with a handshake. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, you mean COFS has not entered a 'plea of .. guilty or not guilty'. Personally, I think COFS had ample time to say 'guilty' at the CSN thread. I think it's reasonable to assume COFS will 'plead' not guilty. My biggest point in this is that the CSN thread got so far without any evidence. You should not have to generate/locate the evidence. It should have already been collected prior to Durova's choice of mentorship or ban.Peace. Lsi john 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I also believe that an automatic plea of 'not guilty' is entered for defendants in absentia. (just trying to be clear not lawyeresque.) The real point is that no evidence to support the charges has been presented after two weeks and we need to move on. Peace. Lsi john 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support as per nom. -- Justanother 14:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strongly object. The main body of my evidence has yet to be posted. I often wait for other editors to go first at cases where I'm not a primary disputant since they have firsthand recollections of relevant events and I don't want to duplicate points they might be in a better position to express. Durova ^Charge! 18:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support motion. Durova, whether evidence has been posted or not is irrelevant for the motion. You are skipping steps on the ladder and escalated a no-issue up to ArbCom. You and Jehochman wrote this nice article recently - "SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider" [1] - about how you "specialize in complex investigations". Well alright, please present those results then and do not use the absence of evidence as an argument for skipping Wikipedia DR processes. COFS 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

What lack of evidence? Anynobody gave some compelling evidence, as did Jpgordon. I honestly think Lsi is doing this because he doesn't want to be involved anymore (see his original statement, last line of it). The motion is also premature since COFS hasn't even given his evidence yet. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose- There is an important situation here which needs resolution. There is plenty of evidence. It appears to me that the cofs-directed editors do not want this proceeding to move ahead.-- Fahrenheit451 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

"cofs-directed editors". Care to expand on that, User:Fahrenheit451? -- Justanother 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Justanother, are you attempting to start what you call "Bait and Bitch"?-- Fahrenheit451 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

F451, you already put the bait out there with "cofs-directed editors", I am asking you to explain that. -- Justanother 01:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Justanother, you have it inverted. You were the guy who put the bait out there and I am not giving you the opportunity to engage in personal attacks and incivility. It looks to me that you are violating WP:AGF. -- Fahrenheit451 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Motion to include the correct use of WP:CSN in this arbitration

3) I think that inclusion of a discussion of the correct use of WP:CSN in this arbitration is fitting and would benefit the project as a whole.

In my opinion, and with all due respect to Durova, the use of WP:CSN that Durova seems to support, here and, IMO, by her actions on the CSN board, as perhaps some sort of summary court (my term, not hers), is contrary to the policy that is supposed to be the basis for the CSN board, Wikipedia:Ban#Community ban, and contrary to the cautions printed in bold at the top of the CSN page itself. I addressed this during the COFS CSN case itself, diff and mentioned that when the COFS case was over that I was going to address it at WP:AN, not as an attack on Durova but as something that needed to be addressed. To recap my argument, I felt that, in cases like User:COFS, the board is being misused. The cautions printed in bold at the top of the CSN page itself clearly state:

Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort.

Yet, in COFS' case, that instruction was clearly ignored and there was no real previous WP:DR. As I stated at the time, I thought it odd that a so-called community sanction was taking place with a small group of mostly highly-invested editors and one admin, along with her apprentice, who might see such use of the board as part of what she descibes as her "hobby". With all due respect to Durova et al (really, this is NOT about Durova and I imagine that she will abide by what is decided either here or at WP:AN, if the arbitrators decline to address the issue here), I found that an odd definition of "community". I thought it odd that the board even existed. (Later an editor made me aware of a recent WP:MfD on the board, here, where, FWIW, User:Jimbo Wales voted to delete. The MfD closed as "No consensus".) When I looked at the policy that is supposed to be the basis for this board, Wikipedia:Ban#Community ban, I was surprised to find that it did not describe what was happening on the CSN board at all. The way I think the CSN board is supposed to be used is that an editor finally racks up so many blocks that an admin blocks him indef. Then the admin posts it on CSN and we see if any other admin will unblock. If not, voila, community ban. That is what is described at Wikipedia:Ban#Decision to ban as # 1. This action of going over to WP:CSN looking for the indef block or ban is clear misuse of that board, IMO. I wonder if the arbitrators would like to make clarifying the correct use of the WP:CSN board in light of the policy on bans a part of this action? I think that that would be a Good Thing. -- Justanother 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

If you want to recommend some principles and findings of fact, go right ahead. We'll attend to them (or not) as we see fit; you don't need either a motion or our permission to bring up the issue yourself. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

If the Committee decides to accept this motion it would expand the scope of this case considerably. Several of Justanother's policy and process assertions point toward cluster of actions that were initiated in March and April of this year by a relatively small group of editors who are not named parties presently. In defending my actions it would be necessary to present diffs that relate to them. If the Committee considers this I suggest a circumscribed version of the above: the present wording is wide ranging and prejudicial. Durova ^Charge! 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

My post edit conflicted with jpgordon's. Durova ^Charge! 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Motion to clearly state the charges

5) I have been reading through lots of garble and comments and whatnot here. What are the charges exactly and why is Durova so eager to get COFS banned? I want this clearly stated. Misou 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

So state it. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I got no charges to make. That's a call to Durova. Your turn, ma'am. Misou 02:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I was reluctant to answer this because it's such a loaded question. What I proposed at WP:CSN was a bit more lenient than what COFS should have done voluntarily per the WP:COI guideline. The active accounts that were linked through the checkuser are pretty much all engaged in edit warring and some userblocks have accumulated. So I proposed a short term 3 month topic ban to that portion of article space, reducible to 1 month with mentorship. Talk pages, WikiProjects, dispute resolution, and noticeboards all would remain open. So COFS would have had many options for addressing any anti-Scientology POV pushing - and I hoped a bit of time and mentorship would bring the whole business to a collaborative solution.

Another alternative was open to me, one that more often gets applied post-checkuser: I could have simply blocked COFS at the next sign of disruption, then blocked any of those other accounts and IPs that tried to edit during COFS's block per WP:SOCK, then reset the duration of COFS's block, then extended the blocks if problems continued. I've been down that road before in other situations and it often ends with full sitebanning.

I proposed an alternative solution precisely because I wanted to keep COFS as a Wikipedia contributor, and my good faith has been very badly repaid. Durova ^Charge! 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

8 references to yourself within 3 paragraphs. 0 references to anyone else. Thank you for demonstrating it so clearly. Peace. Lsi john 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Durova, may I ask you to state your charges? All I understand is how grateful you were not to block me (on grounds you would have lost on as WP:SOCK does not apply in my case as it is a lie. But you might know that) but did not get what exactly got you to skip the dispute resolution process. Please? COFS 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please review my initial statement for a list of the relevant policies. Also note that I took the case here per a referral from the CSN closure, which placed you under provisional topic ban. Arbitration is a normal venue to appeal a community sanction. Restatements should not be necessary since these points are already in the case. Durova ^Charge! 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you read what you wanted to read. The referal was to WP:RFC or RFAr without prejudice or bias. The correct course was RFC. You chose arbcom in order to clear your name. Peace. Lsi john 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Obviously the referral to RFAr was correct because the case has been accepted. In my experience Arbcom is conservative about what cases they accept. My read of this motion is that it's little more than pestering, a concept Bishonen has already explained. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Motion to change scope of case and instead focus on accounts editing from subject IPs

6) I am concerned that the case is overlooking the problem which I think interests the arbcom; multiple accounts editing from subject IPs. By itself the COFS account hasn't done anything worthy of arbcom attention, IMHO. When taken into context with the other identified accounts editing from these IPs the problem is much more obvious. The best indicator of this is that except for one, 100% of the editors most edited articles are related to the subject. Whereas a declared member like Justanother who has not edited from said IPs has 73% percent of his most edited articles related to it.

To sum up, I feel like we're singling out one member in a team of six. This seems unfair, and away from the actual concerns. Anynobody 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reject. I think it does not make any difference from where an editor goes online as it is easy anyway to log on from just somewhere and pretend to be just someone. Thumbs up to those who don't do that. And I think that people should write/edit/contribute about things they have a clue of. What's happening in the Scientology etc articles is that totally clueless parrots copy and paste nonsense from some non-RS websites and some such sources into WP and call it an article. That's one group. Then there is the group of those actively hostile to Scientology on and off WiP whose agenda is to slant all articles to negative (someone might just check my trail today to see two of those in action). And then there are those having personal knowledge and who are honest about it, like COFS on her user page from the beginning. If its Wikipedia policy that those who have personal knowledge about sth cannot edit about that subject then WP is just a piece of junk and should be discarded from the net. Misou 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying Scientologists shouldn't post at all or anything of the kind with this proposal. All I am saying is that the more poignant issue seems to be a group of editors who average between them 96% of their most edited articles are about Scientology, while editing from said organizations IPs. (I have a difficult time doing it but could maybe see past Justanother's 73% or Bravehartbear at 83%, but 96% is just too high a figure to ignore.) Anynobody 07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Lsi john, the edit history of Anynobody/Anyeverybody is definitely subject to scrutiny and is already within the scope of this arbitration. Please check the edit history of this user and make a list of edits, both good and bad, that stand out, as I did for Justanother. Edits aren't expected to be perfect. You have to look at the balance of edits. After performing this exercise, I formed a more favorable view of Justanother, and we've agreed to work together. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The proposal is meant to make this case more compatible with what jpgordon said when voting to hear the case:

* Accept. We need to determine if the claims of innocent usage of a shared proxy for the Scientology organization are legitimate or just an excuse for sock- or meatpuppeting; we also need to determine if members of an organization that vigorously defends a synoptic point of view, who edit from the same IP, should be treated as individuals or as a single user.

Anynobody 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) (and in order to help you take up Jehochman on his suggestion: Anynobody ( talk · contribs · logs) and Anyeverybody ( talk · contribs · logs). reply

Reject. I concur with what Misou says above. COFS 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Anynobody, just to make sure I have this right: You're asking that we expand this arbitration to include your edit history, discussion comments and AN/I behavior so we don't unfairly 'single out COFS', right? That's very noble, I'll give it some thought. Peace. Lsi john 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Motion to move discussions not related to the case to the respective talk pages

7) In the course of this ArbCom several proxy wars found their way in here. All not mentioning COFS and not dealing with shared IPs have nothing to do with the ArbCom and should be moved to the talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This case is about exactly what ArbCom decides it is about. Oh, by the way, editing from open proxies is not allowed. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Maybe we need another ArbCom on the other stuff which came up. But this is about COFS and a "shared IP" (actually an anti-virus/firewall/proxy server) and maybe a SSL line (your-freedom). Misou 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

As the clerk for this case, I can't say that the various discussions are outside the realm of what the arbitrators might consider, especially in light of the comment by one of the arbs on the proposed decision talk page. Of course, if the arbitrators advise that one or more subjects are outside the scope of the case and the threads are distracting, I will proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Motion to explain findings

8) I was assuming it was understood that I dislike findings without rationalization, but given how wrong my assumptions have been I'm going to point out a fact that seem to be escaping the arbcom's attention. It's complicated so I'm not trying to impugn anyone's intelligence by saying they missed it.

The committee says that COFS is not abiding by NPOV, I don't disagree. COFS has difficulty understanding NPOV sometimes, I mean no offense. I can not explain NPOV to COFS because I am thought to be biased, and therefore COFS could understandably ignore what I was saying. The arbcom is unbiased, so if one/some of the members point out examples of NPOV errors and explain them COFS might not repeat the same error. If the arbcom just finds COFS violated NPOV. I don't see how they can expect her to stop,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not saying her nose needs to be rubbed in any mistakes, but holding someone accountable for errors that aren't at the very least pointed out is fundamentally flawed if the intention is to correct behavior. Anynobody 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

9) Motion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

COFS is warned to stop violating the temporary topic ban established at WP:CSN

1) When the CSN discussion was closed, COFS received an interim topic ban. [2] This ban has been violated twice by COFS. [3] [4]. Moved to evidence page instead.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No injunction necessary, just a polite reminder. We didn't create the CSN ban, and we don't need to enforce it. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jehochman ^Talk 06:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

During an arbitration proceeding I felt if would be wrong for me to issue a warning to COFS. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please refactor to "COFS is placed under a temporary topic ban for the duration of this arbitration." EL_C made what looks to me like a throwaway suggestion that was never ratified in any way or communicated to COFS. There was really little there for COFS to violate. Please refactor and I have no problem with it if is something the arbitrators see a need for. -- Justanother 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Stricken and moved to evidence page. If COFS continues to violate the ban, I believe that any administrator could take appropriate enforcement action. Jehochman ^Talk 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

There is no ban. I will simply repost what I put on COFS' talk page earlier:

All due respect but I think not. That some unnamed editors or editors refrain from editing some unnamed topic or topics was part of a suggested course of action. I know the above sounds a bit like wikilawyering but the simple point is that you do not topic ban someone by suggestion. There is no ban until someone with the authority to enforce it and the accountability that goes with that authority comes over [to COFS' talk page] and specifically tells COFS that s/he has a temporary ban. -- Justanother 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

-- Justanother 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Respectfully request that this be removed. The user should have been told on their talkpage that such a ban was in place. There is no indication that COFS was ever told of the topic ban.

The only reason I knew of the ban was because I've been following the conversations here and someone pointed it out. It's entirely possible, and quite reasonble, that COFS did not know of the ban.

I have now posted a notice on his/her talkpage. If COFS doesn't honor the 'notice', then this warning would be appropriate.

Peace. Lsi john 14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wow, no questions? COFS 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Proposed final decision Information

Editors should avoid creating the appearance of COI violations

1) An apparent of Conflict of Interest can be just as damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as an actual conflict of interest. Editors should avoid behaving in a way that creates an apparent COI violation. Jehochman ^Hablar 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would be something of an extension to existing policy, which is concerned with actual, not perceived, conflict of interest. I don't see where the community has put such an extension forward; perhaps someone might point me to such an existing statement of policy. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Why not write a completely new proposal, given that the responses here are to the original one? Edits like this make the discussion very hard to make sense of. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I've refactored my proposal (below) in the form of a clarification as to the evidence required to establish COI editing. The problem we face is that editors who engage in COI editing aren't always forthcoming about their intentions. Appearances plus policy violations should be sufficient to establish COI editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure the wording is on target, but something along these lines may be appropriate if it falls within the Committee's mandate. One point I'd like to drive at is that this site's interpretations of COI shouldn't be divorced from a reasonable non-Wikipedian's commonsense understanding. Wikipedia's archives are public disclosures and GDFL licensed, and the site's prominence does mean the press picks up on the appearance of impropriety sometimes. It's pretty random which situation they'll publicize, but we've all seen some of those situations snowball in the news. Wikipedia has an interest in minimizing that dynamic. So do all its editors, although some may not realize that. Durova ^Charge! 18:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• WP:COI does not include other than a trivial mention of "appearance" in reference to COI. Not only is such a policy change outside the mandate of this arbitration, as I understand that mandate, it is a change that would be extremely contentious as "appearance of COI" can be interpreted with an extremely wide latitude and would likely just form yet another basis for disruptive squabbling that does not further this project. It is instruction creep at its worst, IMO. -- Justanother 15:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. COFS 02:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I suggest this wording, "An apparent Conflict of Interest can damage Wikipedia's reputation. Editors should conduct themselves in such a manner as to avoid the appearance of COI."-- Fahrenheit451 04:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Two words: "Weasel wording". What is an apparent coi? What guidance can we provide an editor to show them a nice clear line which they may not 'step across'? And, in fairness, have you read the COI guideline? It does not proscribe someone with a 'perceived' COI from editing.

COI is specifically defined: "Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest." COI is not simply having a POV, it is allowing that POV to influence your editing in an NPOV manner.

apparent COI is undefinable and is subject to interpretation. Peace. Lsi john

Paul said, “Avoid all appearance of evil” (I Thess. 5:22). In Jewish culture, the concept is called "marit ha'ayin". People have written about this idea for thousands of years. There must be something to it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Good topic for WP:DYK reply

Jehochman, I have not said there is nothing to the concept. There is a difference between a 'life plan' and 'formal rules'. It's like the famous qoute "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it." In our case, we must be able to define it, and 'apparent' COI, is open to too much subjective opinion. What is apparent to you, may not be apparent to me, and unless you can define it clearly, adding such wording to policies or guidelines is weasely (wiki word, not mine). Personally, I think you have lots of good ideas and I have respect for you and your ideas. In this case, the idea needs refined considerably. Peace. Lsi john 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I disagree with Lsi john's view that "apparent" is a weasel word as it is used in the english language without that connotation. The concept relates to communicating one's intentions through one's work and publicized statements. I assert that avoiding the appearance of COI is a valid principle. There is truth in Jehochman's statement concerning marit ha'ayin, (mutinous eye in Hebrew?) " just as a book of instructions should be unambiguous, so should our conduct (by not laying itself open to misinterpretation - the idea of marit ha-ayin)." I suggest that creating the apparency of COI has been ONE of the issues common to many cofs involved editors on Wikipedia.-- Fahrenheit451 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

F451, are you a party in this? Didn't see you on the list. Misou 22:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's simple. What Jehochman is saying is that you can have a COI but nobody should notice. Because that's bad PR for Wikipedia. So better go and be an underground editor, deny affiliations and don't you be responsible for anything. Did I get this right? Misou 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Misou, no you did not. It is not clear who you are responding to. I agreed with Jehochman's proposal.-- Fahrenheit451 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

COI editing can be inferred based on an editor's closeness to a subject coupled with violations of other policies

2) Conflict of Interest editing can damage Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral source of information. We can reasonably infer COI editing when editors have a close connection to a subject, and violate policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL when editing that subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Aside from whether or not I agree with this, if I did, I don't think it would be an extension in policy; that we can make such an inference would be an interpretation of existing policy. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Again, this is an extension of policy. This change would need to be done by community consensus. Arbcom finds on facts, based on rules currently in place. Arbcom (as a supreme court) would help interpret rules. But changes to policy or guidelines would need to be done by the community at the respective page. Peace. Lsi john 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not asking to change policy. In real life courts, it is possible to argue for an extension of the law, but I'm not completely sure how this forum works. Lsi john, as a party you shouldn't post in the others section. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I feel it is somewhat of a change because we are tying things like WP:CIVIL to WP:COI and I think that stretches the COI Guideline pretty thin. If an editor is making 'legitimate' edits and constantly removing POV or unsourced material and gets frustrated and reflects that in edit comments an interpretation of your words could be used to claim WP:COI. They might be an asshole, but that doesn't mean they are editing with COI. Peace. Lsi john 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Although I see what you're driving at, Jehochman, this is somewhat out of step with precedents in tone and presentation. Durova ^Charge! 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand (and is already covered in WP:COI). COFS 02:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Only One User is permitted to edit from a Corporate IP Address Block as an Initial Measure for COI violation

3) Conflict of Interest can be restrained in part by permitting only one user to edit from a corporate IP address block as a remedy for COI violation per Durova's proposal: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:COI-- Fahrenheit451 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's true that such a restraint could be imposed; is there evidence of community support for such a policy? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Not a good idea. Overly bureaucratic. Difficult to enforce. Jehochman ^Talk 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Also not supported by current policy. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run checkuser all day and night. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The policy I cite is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It doesn't say, "anyone, but only one per corporate subnet." Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And it does not state that if you incorporate, you now can use sock and meat puppets. Anyone here means, any single entity.-- Fahrenheit451 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please explain How it is overly bureaucratic and difficult to enforce.-- Fahrenheit451 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Jehochman failed to explain what wikipedia policy this recommendation violated. There is no evidence that the scenario suggested by Jehochman would materialize; that is, "run checkuser all day and night."-- Fahrenheit451 02:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Who would decide which of two or more users who happen to work at the same company or other enterprise would be permitted to edit? Newyorkbrad 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That would have to be determined by an admin. The user who registered first would be the user who could edit.-- Fahrenheit451 02:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And an international company with branches in china, russia and Germany? This restriction would be bad, because the Russian branch could not necessarily expect good representation from their Chinese or German sister branches. Peace. Lsi john 03:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Refactored reply after your comment was. Your opinion of the restriction is unfounded. We are discussing a corporation which is a single legal entity. If that corporation does not coordinate their editing, that is their issue.-- Fahrenheit451 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

An intriguing idea. Suggest at least rewording to clarify the definition of "corporate". How would it dovetail with WP:AGF? Many new users make their first edits without registering an account - and would account registration be an exception to this restriction? The idea raises a lot of questions. I wonder if it would even be practicable or enforceable. Durova ^Charge! 18:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The IP address would be THE user. Even if multiple individuals edited from the same IP address, that would be tantamount to one user. Abuses from that IP address would be treated as from the same user. WP:AGF is uneffected. If a there is a registered user from the corporate IP address, the first user is the only user allowed to edit from that IP address block. I don't see any enforcement difficulty.-- Fahrenheit451 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

So if a university uses a single shared IP address, what do they do? Hold a lottery? Durova ^Charge! 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I should have explicitly excluded educational institutions. I don't think we have seen any noteworthy COI situations from those.-- Fahrenheit451 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually I've seen some noteworthy COI from universities and an off-wiki attack site criticized my handling of one of those cases. Durova ^Charge! 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Possible educational institution based violations would have to be handled on a case by case basis then.-- Fahrenheit451 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

What do you think of my related proposal about COI? That wouldn't require making special cases of libraries, universities, and schools. Durova ^Charge! 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please provide a link so I can read it. I may amend my proposal in light of yours.-- Fahrenheit451 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:COI Durova ^Charge! 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(outdent) Absolutely useless. This would just result in 50 new IPs being created or driving people to AOL (shudder). Can't be more counterproductive. Misou 04:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No evidence for that whatsoever. That is entirely your speculation, Misou. Do you think OSA would actually pay for 50 AOL accounts? Knowing how they are with money, I think not.-- Fahrenheit451 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Nor evidence for your stuff either, except for your usual general assumption/invalidation/snide remark talk. You will need to put your cards on the table. Misou 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The evidence for my statements was already presented, but either you are not being truthful, or you failed to read it. We are not playing cards here. And your incivility is not welcome.-- Fahrenheit451 04:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. COFS 02:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:MEAT

4) When multiple actors edit on behalf of an organizational interest, as opposed to their individual interests, then all shall be considered to be the same virtual person for the purpose of applying Wikipedia's policies. An organization cannot take multiple "bites of the apple" by sending an endless stream of editors. Warnings or blocks applied to one agent apply equally to all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"1st amendment action"? Whatever is Misou talking about? There is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Anyway, "on behalf of" is problematic. And it makes the assumption that one can separate organization from individual interests, but that's not always true -- especially in the case of individuals dedicated to a cause. The concept is good at first glance but gets troublesome when more deeply thought through. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Again this "Freedom of Speech" thing. There is none on Wikipedia. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Perhaps this is better than limiting to one editor per corporate subnet. This is more general, and probably easier to enforce. However, we still need to make a judgment as to whether editors are acting in a personal or corporate capacity, but I don't think there will ever be a way to avoid making that distinction. I think this is a way of looking at our existing policy WP:SOCK. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

How do you define on behalf of? Durova ^Charge! 08:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

"On behalf of" is judged by factors such as tone of the edits, tendentiousness, editing that focuses exclusively on articles related to the organization, voluntary disclosures, IP address relating to the organization, and even username related to the organization. Does the organization seem to exercise control over their edits? Is there an "agency" or "apparent agency"? An apparent agency is when somebody appears to act on behalf of another entity, the entity knows about it, and does not disavow the relationship. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm uneasy about the potential for wikilawyering. Durova ^Charge! 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Good thinking. And - what's "opposed to their individual interests" mean? Who decides who is editing "opposed to their individual interests" and who is not and who decides if "multiple actors edit on behalf of an organizational interest"? Very impracticable, lots of potential for 1st Amendment action. Misou 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Reformulated below as #19. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. Even though it would be an interesting Freedom of Speech/Censorship issue. COFS 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:COI

5) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This passes the sniff test pretty well. All it's really saying is, if you're editing from (for example) a Microsoft IP, you'll be looked at very carefully if you edit Microsoft. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This seems flexible enough to cover decentralized corporations, universities, etc. without undue burden on editors who act in good faith. Durova ^Charge! 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Reject. Total nonsense. Those having dishonesty and POV-pushing in mind just take AOL or whatnot and there goes your IP checking. This is just punishing those who are honest about their "home" or the fact that they use workplace equipment for their editing hobby. Misou 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Suppose a United Way volunteer wants wants to edit about the United Way: if that person edited from COI offices the onsite behavior reflects on the organization. So if the person gets sitebanned for persistent WP:NPA violations it creates a public relations risk for the organization. The organization isn't responsible for actions of a volunteer who acts from home. An employee who edits from home still has a conflict of interest because of the person's financial and career interest in United Way's success. The practicalities of determing these situations are a different matter; this proposal is about principle. Durova ^Charge! 06:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And what use has this theory if there is no reflection in real life? You could have a FedEx employee editing the UPS articles and would not even notice. Most likely such scenario is actually happening right now. Just as those apologetics in their religious "crusade" don't get noticed right now. I got to know them off-wiki, but without that I'd fall for them too. This proposal is just wasting time and no way to enforce quality of Wikipedia entries. It will push up the dishonest ones and further degrade article quality. Misou 02:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It has a very real reflection in real life. See Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia. Durova ^Charge! 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. Pure witch hunting though. COFS 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I support this proposal. I would hope, if implemented, that admins enforce violations of COI with blocks on corporate IP addresses.-- Fahrenheit451 04:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:NOT#Not a battleground

6) Collaboration and cooperation are fundamental to Wikipedia. This site's role is to describe controversial subjects rather than to become a focal point for controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Boilerplate, it seems. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova ^Charge! 08:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment, or actually: this reads like a proposal such as "Rain is wet". Certainly, without cooperation there is no Wikipedia. There is plenty of policy about that, probably even too many policies. COFS 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:MEAT and WP:COI

7) Editors who access Wikipedia through the same organization's IP address or addresses, and who edit articles about that organization, may be regarded as meatpuppets if they cluster to take similar positions at COI-related article content disputes, community ban threads, or other consensus discussions which pertain to that organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"COI-related" is a bit vague. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think if this limits itself to COI topics it would avoid collateral damage. For example, this wouldn't apply if a large university required all its freshmen to read Dante Alighieri and some of its students edited the biography article. But if several were backing each other in conflicts about that university's Wikipedia article, WP:DUCK. Feel welcome to modify the above; I lean toward weighing WP:AGF in the early stages. Durova ^Charge! 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Amended per jpgordon. I hope this is clearer. Durova ^Charge! 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. COFS 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:AGF trumps WP:COI

8) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, WP:AGF trumps WP:COI. WP:AGF is a key principal of this project while WP:COI is not.

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."

If an editor claims that he is not editing from a function or position in an organization that would automatically engender a COI and that he is free to edit as pleases (not under a directive or constraint) then WP:AGF requires that the burden of proof of WP:COI is on objecting editor(s) to prove to the satisfaction of the community that the edits of the alleged COI editor show an inappropriate pattern. A simple WP:RFCU showing an corporate IP is insufficient to set aside WP:AGF if the editor claims no COI. -- Justanother 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sure, but AGF becomes moot as soon as BF is shown -- for example, claiming no COI when a COI clearly exists (in the eyes of reasonable third parties.) -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Then you agree with my principal? I agree with your point that "AGF becomes moot as soon as BF is shown". As far as your example, let me say this; were a discussion on the implications of COFS editing from the Church proxy to have taken place on WP:COIN and neutral 3rd parties had come to the conclusion that a COI existed or neutral 3rd parties had advised on what might be the proper way for COFS to edit (or not edit) Wikipedia then we could say that "a COI clearly exists (in the eyes of reasonable third parties)" and it would be bad faith for COFS to continue to edit contrary to the recommendations of WP:COIN. That discussion did not happen because the process was short-circuited. -- Justanother 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Response to User:Kwsn and general clarification: In a "normal" case the inappropriate pattern will precede the WP:RFCU or the disclosure or adjudication of COI. In other words, the "offending editor" will show an abusive pattern and it will come to light or be adjudicated that there is a COI issue. In this case we have a situation where an editor called for a WP:RFCU looking for a possible WP:SOCK issue. No evidence of sockpuppetry was found but a number of otherwise unrelated editors were found to be editing from a Church of Scientology-owned proxy server ( gateway). Some editors have claimed that the simple fact of editing from this proxy server engenders a conflict of interest. I say that use of the proxy is not, a priori, a WP:COI, that WP:AGF requires that the burden of proving or showing an abusive editing pattern indicative of COI remains on those editors that object; they cannot simply exclude every editor that edits from a certain IP no matter who owns the IP.-- Justanother 15:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

From WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. What part of this trumps WP:COI after a checkuser result comes in? Durova ^Charge! 18:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You seem to be extending that to read: Actions inconsistent with good faith include editing from a corporate IP, repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. My question to you is: without making any change to WP:AGF, what part of that indicates that editing from a corporate IP is "inconsistent with good faith"? -- Justanother 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Durova, given that checkuser does not provide confirmed evidence of "...repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.", and even if it confirmed 'sockpuppetry' (which it doesn't necessarily), it certainly doesn't confirm ' malicious sockpuppetry'..

My three questions for you are:

1. What exactly do you believe that a checkuser result provides?
2. Where is the guideline that allows you to assume bad faith upon a checkuser result, in the absense of any other damning evidence?
3. Where in your AGF guidline does it say 'a checkuser result' is an example of an action inconsistent with good faith?

Peace. Lsi john 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

If what Justanother proposes is true, and WP:AGF trumps WP:COI, in theory the community should still be assuming good faith about MyWikiBiz. It also sounds like Justanother is essentially stating that checkuser should be disregarded or not used because we don't know who specifically is using the computer at the IPs in question. In this case the specific who isn't as important as where, the information tells us that some edits are made from dedicated CoS IPs. Justanother told me earlier that the CoS does not offer open access for it's members and only staff or someone who happens to be staying at a hotel in Fl. If what he told me is accurate, all we need to know is employees or volunteers from the CoS are editing Wikipedia from CoS computers. Anynobody 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

AN, I have already entered into evidence my considered and complete opinion as to whom might be sitting at a computer with a CoS proxy IP address, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence#We cannot make assumptions of "who" is editing from a Church IP without evidence. Please disregard any previous answer I may have given you less formally as incomplete. Thank you. -- Justanother 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I read your statement and it still doesn't say the CoS allows the general public to use it's computers. It admits the possibility that church volunteers could be using the IPs, and states that the CoS owns several hotels. You do understand that a volunteer or member would have just as much of a COI as an employee right? If I understand you, we should assume the editors in question live in or extensively travel using CoS hotels while editing Wikipedia? Anynobody 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No, not the general public. But "public" Scientologists like myself, sure. I am not specifically speaking about COFS or any other specific editor and not trying to say anything about who they may be or their relationship to the CoS; they can do that for themselves. I am saying that it is not unusual for Scientologists to stay in a Church hotel for weeks or even months while they do their training and processing at advanced organizations. It is conceivable that a Scientologist with no formal ties to the Church, i.e. not Church staff or Sea Org, could edit regularly using the Church gateway for a somewhat extended period. That is all I am saying in the evidence, that we cannot assume. -- Justanother 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Justanother, arbitration principles have broad application beyond the case at hand. If you mean to interpret WP:AGF so that it excludes a checkuser finding, take care to define exactly how much far you mean to extend the reach of AGF over COI. If AGF always trumps COI then we might as well mark the COI guideline as historical. Where would I, as an investigator, cease giving weight to an editor's protestations and page protect an article? Where are the reasonable distinctions from friendly suggestions to warnings to blocks? I don't enjoy using sysop tools, but when it's necessary to do so I try to be consistent and fair. I think the present wording would hamstring a lot of legitimate investigations. Durova ^Charge! 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

In the absence of evidence to the contrary... we don't get to assume that a potential conflict of interest equates to COI editing violations, and if someone says they do not have 'COI', then unless they demonstrate otherwise, we must assume they are being truthful. And, personally, I'd rather risk hamstringing a legitimate investigation if it means stopping a witchhunt against an otherwise innocent editor. To do otherwise suggests the end justifies the bodycount. Peace. Lsi john 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Since you want to exclude a checkuser result as evidence, I'm not sure what evidence you mean. Nor is it clear what you mean by potential conflict of interest. It appears that you're asking the Committee to make a major statement in the service of your viewpoint on a single dispute. The best chance of getting acceptance is if you define the margins of this proposal and minimize its negative impact elsewhere in the project. What does constitute demonstration of COI, in your view? In what situations doesn't AGF trump COI? Durova ^Charge! 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Exclude it as evidence of 'what'? I asked you (above) and you've ignored my questions. You continue to mis-interpret my statements, yet you object when I provide an interpretation for yours. Please tell us exactly what 'evidence' you believe a checkuser result provides. You have been simply pointing to it as 'evidence', without saying what crime you consider it to provide evidence of. Please be clear. Peace. Lsi john 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:COI. Durova ^Charge! 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Durova, again you've avoided the question with misdirection and implication, and left me to 'guess' what I will about finding your answer in that link. If the questions were too complicated, just say so and I'll try to phrase them more clearly. I assumed they were simple enough to understand.

First, there is NOTHING that talks about CHECKUSER in your link here, so suggesting it addresses my question is absurd. Second, checkuser does not reveal the IP, it only indicates that accounts are related 'in some way'. Third, having a conflict of interest does not imply bad faith or POV editing. Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence a checkuser does NOT indicate COI. If I had any good faith left to give you, I'd assume you are simply 'assuming' we know what your evidence and logic is. But since I don't have any AGF or respect left for you, I assume you're simply being evasive to avoid direct questions and to keep up the charade. Peace. Lsi john 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

(outdent) Is the connection really so hard to discern? When a checkuser result reveals that one or more IP addresses resolve to Organization X, and the IPs and/or registered accounts have been editing Wikipedia's articles about Organization X, then there exists a presumptive conflict of interest. As I've stated before, there's a difference between the existence of a conflict of interest and violation of the conflict of interest guideline. There's no problem with the COI guideline if the editor reverts breaching experiments or removes unsourced negative biographical material in accordance with WP:BLP. If that editor posts a suggested major edit to the article talk page and then opens an article content WP:RFC that brings in a consensus of positive comments, then I doubt there would be a guideline violation if the editor then implemented the suggested change at the article. Another way of expressing this is that editors who make use of Organization X's servers ought to bear in mind that their actions appear to represent that organization. Ultimately Organization X does bear some responsibility since they allowed the use of their equipment. Durova ^Charge! 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

note: To those who are unfamiliar with the background here, I apologize in advance for my bluntness. However, I have tried far to long to be 'polite' and have 'danced around words', so as to not offend Durova. I've tried privately and publically, with the patience of a saint. It seems that she has barricaded herself behind a 3' concrete wall, and has refused to even once consider (let alone acknowledge) that there is any possibility that anything I've ever said has even a remote possibility of credibility. Not once. As often as not, her responses have nothing whatsoever to do with my original post/question. Every single post from her has been that she's right and I'm too stupid or too new to understand, and that I don't have her 'experience' and I need mentoring. My patience with her is gone. My AGF with her is gone. And my respect for her is gone. If that is incivil, then I'm guilty.

Durova, yes, it really is that hard to read your mind. It's also incredibly unfair to expect people to 'know' what you are thinking. I asked you a direct question. At first you ignored me, and then you gave me an indirect answer by referral. You carefully avoided answering the questions and thus you avoided any possibility of having someone refute your answer. Now, your passive-voice weasely answer still doesn't really address my question and is full of IFs and implications, that you adeptly managed to not directly link to COFS.

Regarding your edit-comment for civlity, your consistently bad faith interpretations and misrepresentations of out-of-context events is only trumped by your attempts to distract us with requests for civility. In the face of your conduct, I really have no idea how you expect me to be more civil. In virtually every post you have either insulted me, accused me of misconduct, or told me I was wrong and you were right. And, not once have I officially complained about your insulting conduct. You consistently skim my posts and then misrepresent them in some bizzare answer that only barely relates to a concern I've raised. When I question your actions, you cry NPA. When I question your interpretation of events, you cry CIVIL. Justanother challenges your misuse of CSN and you attack him with insultingly absurd evidence and imply that it is damning. What is so difficult about directly addressing the COFS issue?

Allow me to directly address your answer:

A) " Is the connection really so hard to discern? "

To use your own complaints: Less sarcasm, more civility please. Don't be condescending, thanks.

Personally I don't care if you're condescending. But since you are doing the very thing that you are objecting to elsewhere and I believe it's only fair to "return in kind that which is given".

B) " When a checkuser result reveals that one or more IP addresses resolve to Organization X, and the IPs and/or registered accounts have been editing Wikipedia's articles about Organization X, then there exists a presumptive conflict of interest.

Let's count the number of ways this is wrong.

1) Checkuser does not disclose an IP, or some checkuser admin would lose their tools. Therefore, the knowledge of the IP was additional information and thus OUTSIDE the checkuser result.

2) Checkuser does not tie IPs to Editors, or some checkuser admin would lose their tools.

3) Checkuser does not provide information about where an IP resolves. Again, knowing this constitutes having additional information.

4) There is no rule/guideline that says that "there exists a presumptive conflict of interest". Deciding whether or not we can presume it, is the one of the reasons the arbitrators accepted the case. You're using a 'finding' before its been 'found', demonstrating bad faith. True, you'd like to obtain such a ruling in order to exonerate your bad faith, but there doesn't yet exist one.

C) "As I've stated before, there's a difference between the existence of a conflict of interest and violation of the conflict of interest guideline."

Yet, you cited a checkuser result as demonstrating COI, and then, with no other evidence at hand, assumed bad faith and 'went after' COFS, whom you presumed has a COI, based on the checkuser, and then treated/prosecuted and condemned and threatened with 3 month ban, as if s/he had violated the COI guideline. (Any 'research' you've done subsequent to CSN is covering your ass, and should have been done prior to issuing your verdict, which you gave pretty much at the outset).

D) "There's no problem with the COI guideline if the editor reverts breaching experiments or removes unsourced negative biographical material in accordance with WP:BLP. If that editor posts a suggested major edit to the article talk page and then opens an article content WP:RFC that brings in a consensus of positive comments, then I doubt there would be a guideline violation if the editor then implemented the suggested change at the article. Another way of expressing this is that editors who make use of Organization X's servers ought to bear in mind that their actions appear to represent that organization. Ultimately Organization X does bear some responsibility since they allowed the use of their equipment.

Let's start counting again.

1) If, if, if, if.. we are dealing with COFS (whom I assume is a living breathing person, not an IF).. there are no IF's here. Either COFS DID or DID NOT violate NPOV/BLP/COI. Stop making general passive/aggressive attacks and cite hard fact. Was there a violation or not? None of this relates to my question. Did you even read my questions?

2) There is no guideline/policy/ruling that makes the claim that anyone's actions 'appear to represent an organization'. Unless you know the IP they are using, the edits are all anonymous and don't appear to represent anyone. And, if we are going to allow 'appearance' to be used as evidence, are you giving me permission to describe the appearance of your conduct from the start of this situation? Because it appears very self serving to me. To wit: attacking Justanother because he criticized you.

3) bear some responsibility - Oh how I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Could you be any less specific and still make an accusation? Responsibility for WHAT? For violations? ok, fine. But were there any? Are you sure they 'allowed the use of their equipment'? Perhaps there was theft and hacking involved?

4) And saving the best for last, is your newly invented policy that prohibits someone from making changes to an article without an RFC and discussion, simply because there is a COI attached. Not only does no such policy exist, I believe you have just contradicted your statement that you separate COI from COI violations. And you clearly indicate BAD FAITH assumption, by requiring the person to jump through hops prior to making their proposed edits. How about instead: we let them edit, and if its NPOV, we ban their sorry ass for COI violations?

Your attitude and refusal to budge 1mm is exactly why I wanted to withdraw from this. Unfortunately, I was told that I can't withdraw. After counting the number of 'challenges' you've issued to bring evidence against you, and the number of times you've said you'd be vindicated by arbitration, and your decisions would withstand scrutiny, and you look forward to clearing your name of suspicion , I'm more convinced now than I was before that you opened this arbitration for the sole reason of vindication.

Durova, I'm not expecting you to apologize, because I know now that your vanity won't permit it. But I am expecting you to drop this nonsense and move on. Stop with the silly edit summaries. Stop with the crazy accusations about 'secret clubs'. Stop going after people who legitimately question you. Stop trying to get vindication. Stop trying to make this arbitration about Durova. Peace. Lsi john 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Am I the only one who sees it as ironic that this appears at a proposal about the primacy of WP:AGF? Durova ^Charge! 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No. COFS 02:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. Even though this could be an exciting issue to spend an evening on, this "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. COFS 02:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Justanother proposed this, I didn't. However, parts seems reasonable, others do not. Example, most editors do no claim what the example person did, and just go ahead and do it. I myself have a COI with Milwaukee Electric Tool (a member in my family works there), so I keep away from it content wise (minus vandalism and whatnot). If an RFCU request comes back with the fact that the "claimed innocent" is editing from a corporate IP and has been editing that company's article(s), it is very hard not to assume COI. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I forgot to sign. -- Justanother 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This proposal is very faulty and certainly appears to be coming from highly parochial motivations. If COI exists it can only be acknowledged and dealt with as COI. Other editors and admins need not be brainwashed with false beliefs forced into a policy by parochial interests.-- Fahrenheit451 04:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Awareness of COI

9) Editors affected by a WP:COI are likely to be unaware of it's affect on their editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Most people seem to think they can put their feelings aside and be unaffected by WP:COI issues. Solution suggested below. Anynobody 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This manages to be both trivial and wrong at the same time. "Editors affected by" their mood, their education, their intelligence, their coffee intake are likely to be unaware of it's affect [ sic] on their editing. Or maybe they are aware. Trivial. Wrong (or at least unsupported by any proof). And Anynobody is not talking about COI here. He is talking about strong feelings or beliefs; he equates strong feelings to COI, diff. A rather novel interpretation. -- Justanother 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's hard to build a usable principle around this. We can't read people's minds and intuit their level of awareness. Durova ^Charge! 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment, as I am an editor and thus concerned with this. This proposal is utterly useless because a) it is covered in WP:BIAS and b) would consequently lead to the exclusion of all Wikipedia editors as having WP:COI trouble and c) introduces more arbitraries and crystal balling by Admins as to whether someone is right this second "too COI" or "just moderately COI" or has an "acceptable COI level right now". We might as well throw away all Wikipedia policy then. COFS 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Holding a minority opinion and having strong feelings about it does not constitute COI

10) Shouldn't even have to say this but there is a disturbing element to this arbitration that speaks against that basic concept. And against another basic concept of intellectual discourse; that intelligent people can, in good faith, strongly disagree. -- Justanother 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nobody is suggesting that though. In this case the conflict of interest occurs when members of the group itself edit from said groups IP addresses or spend a majority of their time trying to affect the overall POV regarding it. These are actions which show something beyond a common disagreement.

The principle you propose assumes merely having strong feelings about a minority opinion is the issue being addressed here, it isn't. IMHO when these feelings and opinions outweigh logic and restraint is when the WP:COI issue should come up. Anynobody 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Except that you suggest that; on your talk page you say that strong feelings engender inappropriate editing that can be defined as COI, here. Are you backing away from the position you took on your talk page? -- Justanother 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Although I doubt it's necessary to state this as a principle, I agree. WP:COI is different from WP:NPOV. Durova ^Charge! 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This is actually what I said. Anynobody 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

AN, you link to same diff as me, the one where you append this: "This typically happens when one edits subjects they have strong feelings about" to a definition of COI. COI and strong feelings are not related; one can have a completely mercenary, dispassionate, attitude while editing from a COI and, on the other hand, a person can be very passionate and still exhibit NPOV in their mainspace edits (you know, the ones that count, as far as this being an encyclopedia). AN, you are connecting apples and Hondas. -- Justanother 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support. I think we need to make this clear to protect minority views from bullying. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support, as being member of a minority. COFS 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This proposal is very faulty and appears to originate from parochial interests. The fact is: Holding ANY opinion and having strong feelings about it MAY lead to a conflict of interest situation. This proposal seems intent on brainwashing editors and admins to ignore what they see in front of them.-- Fahrenheit451 04:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

F451, the proposal does not contradict your statement. The propsal says it does not constitute (equate to) COI. It does not say it can't lead to COI. And, it doesn't say COI can't be present. When you changed the wording, you created a straw-man argument. Peace. Lsi john 05:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Being a member of the bigger group does not mean you are NPOV/neutral

11) Being in the dominant or larger group does not imply neutrality nor does it remove the possibility of WP:COI. It simply means that you are in the larger group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As above, I agree with statements that express WP:NPOV as theoretically distinct from WP:COI. I doubt the need for findings along these lines, though. Durova ^Charge! 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Support, per 9) COFS 02:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Corollary to #9. Even if we have others following our lead, we might not be coming from a position of open minded neutrality if we feel that these people have tried our patience long enough. And, more importantly, we might not even realize it. Peace. Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That first quote is either too subtle or not subtle enough, depending on its intent. SheffieldSteel 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please provide diffs to italicized bits that I assume are quotations. Thanks. -- Justanother 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Not necessarily relevant. Merely an example of a possibly held 'viewpoint' which would indicate potential non-neutrality to the overall situation. Peace. Lsi john 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Justanother, after further reflection on your question, I think more of an explanation may be in order.

I do not believe that the fact that someone actually said that is as relevant as what we can derive from the words/statement itself. The concept I'm presenting is subtle and I don't want it to be distracted by the details of he-said/she-said and what their motives were. And, in so much as the words may not have correctly conveyed their intended meaning, it gives even more strength to the concept of assuming good faith in all areas of this arbitration.

This case is about COI. But, at its core, COI represents any conflict of interest. Fundamentally COI reflects a bias toward a viewpoint or attitude that affects one's ability to act fairly and impartially. The Wikipedia guideline is a specific subset related to comerical interests.

In this arbitration, much has been said about the 'appearance of COI'. Though, I prefer the term 'perception'. And it has been suggested to me that 'perception is reality'. This relates to the italicized text because a) my 'initial perception' (reality) was one of serious COI against COFS and b) my 'subsequent perception' (reality), after a limited explanation of the words, was one of COI against the entire group on both sides, and a determination to 'stop the nonsense' (regardless of who paid the fine). Those were my realities. They may not be shared by anyone else. In either case, the words indicate (to me) a pre-determined attitude related the situation and reflect a non-neutral position. (Hence POV and COI).

Given the opinions expressed, on this page, that we should 'avoid the appearance' of COI, it's more about the words themselves, than who said them or what they 'really' meant. There was clearly an appearance of POV & COI sent along with the words.

To those who object to my loosened usage of COI, feel free to replace it with Conflicting Intentions, Conflicting Commitments, or Conflicting Desires.

Hopefully this helps better explain my meaning. Peace. Lsi john 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

John, I think that rather than trying to extend the definition of COI to include all forms of supposed non-neutrality that we WP:KISS and simply call wrong actions "wrong" and call bias "bias". COI can be defined as "serving two masters" or, more usually, "pretending to serve one master while actually serving another." And I do not include one's own feelings or beliefs as one of the masters. We, as editors, are supposed to be serving Wikipedia here and the creation of an encyclopedia. That we have strong feelings about some topic or other is irrelevant; that is not COI. When an editor pretends to serve Wikipedia but is actually making edits that potentially benefit the editor tangibly (not just subjectively) then a conflict of interest exists. -- Justanother 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The 'title' section included NPOV, not COI. I added COI to explain where the source of the NPOV actions/statements. Conflict of Goals is the source, NPOV is the result. Peace. Lsi john 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Blocklogs are not sufficient evidence to condemn. At most they indicate a situation which needs to be investigated.

12) Blocklogs, in and of themselves, are insufficient evidence for several reasons.

a) Strictly by observation, the final blocking admin did not find sufficient grounds to indef block. Thus, clearly, at a minimum, more evidence is required beyond the final block or the last blocking admin was negligent and too soft.

b) Many blocks are done on the good-faith of POV evidence. Some are reversed after further investigation, some are not investigated.

c) Blocks that seemed to be correct at the time are subsequently (after they have expired) found to have been incorrect, or were controversial at the time. These block logs are not always updated to reflect this. (e.g. In this specific arbcom, one of the blocks by ChrisO was for 'removing links'. While a block may have seemed appropriate at the time (i.e. no wrong doing or bad faith on the part of ChrisO), we've now been told that a review of the article shows those links are still removed. Looking back, even if we didn't have any other reasons, we could reasonably apply WP:IAR to the 'removal' of those links and demonstrate that COFS was acting in the interest of Wikipedia/ Yet the block log has not been updated to reflect this.)

d) Controversial blocks are marginal/questionable by definition. Yet the blocklogs rarely indicate that it was a controversial or highly disputed block.

Peace. Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Object to the wording as overly legalistic. Wikipedians don't convict editors, and remedies are preventative rather than punitive. Durova ^Charge! 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. COFS 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Neutral: While block logs may show that an editor may have been abusive in the past, it does not mean they are currently (I know there was a recent ArbCom case regarding this). On the other hand, an extensive block log may show that the user has exhausted the community's willingness to deal with the user. By the way, this is User:Kwsn here, I'm on a different computer and I didn't bother logging on. 72.131.60.56 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Checkuser confirmed does not always PROVE sock usage, nor does it demonstrate Conflict of Interest, and thus should not be used as evidence for 'proof of guilt' for either one.

13) A checkuser result of Confirmed only confirms that there is a common IP(s) usage between users. In the absence of any additional information this result should not be cited as proof of sock puppetry. Peace. Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Checkuser can indeed prove sock usage. It just can't disprove it. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Strongly object. We might as well stop running checkusers if this motion passes. Durova ^Charge! 05:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Not much to comment for lack of technical knowledge. But one thing I know for sure: The checkuser run on me was misleading, brought a false result and violated my privacy rights. Witchhunt, hooray we got one... So I know from personal experience that checkuser is not reliable nor bringing about any information except that some people are using a proxy/firewall. That is most likely true for families as well. COFS 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

A checkuser result of 'confirmed' only confirms common ip usage and suggests 'some' connection between the editors.

In a situation where the IP(s) are dynamic, and overlapping usage is found during time periods, then the probability is high that the accounts are socks of each other. (Or husband and wife?).

In a situation (such as this arbitration) where the shared IP(s) are network 'gateways', then the it is reasonable to believe that the accounts represent individual and separate users. COI may apply, but without more information COI cannot be inferred from the checkuser result.

Given that this detailed network and IP information is not disclosed by the checkuser admin, we cannot draw any specific conclusions about the full meaning of a 'Confirmed' checkuser result beyond the accounts are somehow related. Peace. Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Response: jpgordon, am I mistaken that, in the checkuser case of COFS, the 'confirmed' response did not prove sock-puppets, but only a common IP? I am hoping to 'clarify' the checkuser responses so they are not misunderstood or misused. I'm trying to find wording that prevents people from declaring 'socks' when it could just as easily be a common proxy and multiple editors. Any help would be appreciated. Peace. Lsi john 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

As someone who understands the theory of checkuser, I have to weigh in here & point out that this proposed principle can only be intended to discredit a tool that is useful in the hands of a knowledgable expert, & has proven itself useful many times in the past. If you look at the range of results a checkuser report can provide -- not only "confirmed" or "denied", but "likely", "unlikely" & "inconclusive" -- admittedly an investigation can fail to provide conclusive information. Yet these results give more validity to a report of "confirmed" because Wikipedians who have done this work openly admit the shortcomings of this tool; it does not provide a binary, yes/no answer, and they do not force it to do so. Further, while it is possible that this is a false positive, the probability that this is the case is small enough that it puts the burden of proof upon the accused party to disprove its findings. From what I've read of the evidence in this case, no one has provided any evidence to refute the checkuser findings beyond an appeal to "reasonable doubt" -- which leads me to suspect that no such exculpatory evidence exists. And reasonable doubt is not enough to justify this proposed principle. -- llywrch 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe we just need to change the checkuser responses to the more vague Magic 8-Ball responses: e.g. "Signs point to yes" instead of "confirmed". -- Justanother 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Problems and decisions rarely permit yes/no answers. And your condescension is not making you any friends here. -- llywrch 23:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It would be less misleading to say, on a scale from 0 to 5, that the checkuser result was in this case 5. Sheffield Steel ^talkers _stalkers 21:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

COI editing is a mainspace problem and charges of COI must be based on abusive edits that have the clear goal of forwarding a COI in mainspace.

14) WP:COI repeatedly says things like "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all." COI is the use of Wikipedia articles to further one's own tangible interest(s). It is NOT about violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF or WP:DICK or whatever in talk pages. Those are separate issues and there are separate policies to deal with them. COI is a type of abusive editing that occurs in main article space. If a pattern of editing exists which consistently violates NPOV then that should be fairly easy to demonstrate using mainspace edits. As a supplement, if there are talk page comments that clarify that the abusive mainspace edits are due to COI then those talk page comments might be relevant. But the real proof is in the abusive pattern of mainspace edits and such a pattern must exist before we charge another editor with WP:COI. Otherwise we are violating WP:AGF because the editor has not been shown to have done anything wrong. -- Justanother 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I changed it a bit in view of Durova and Jehochman's objections. -- Justanother 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And again. If the edits are not aimed at changing mainspace to the tangible betterment of the COI editor then there is no real COI problem. -- Justanother 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly object. This would open the door to abusive practices in a variety of places, most notably WP:AFD. I can point to an instance where that contributed significantly to a community ban. Contact me offline for details (that individual has exercised the right to vanish, so unfortunately this offer extends only to the Committee). Durova ^Charge! 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, certainly abuse of AfD, RfC, etc. can be included in what I would term "abusive editing that could be motivated by a COI". I am mainly aiming this as "User:Joe said this on a talk page so he must be editing abusively." That is, IMO, hogwash. COI editing is abusive editing, it is not an expression of a belief or a sharp tongue or bad advice to another editor or a bad joke or what have you. It is not IDONTLIKEIT, IDONTLIKEWHATHESAID. That is NOT COI. -- Justanother 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I fail to see how you conclude that COI should be circumscribed to mainspace on that basis or what systematic problem would be resolved by doing so. If some editor confuses COI with other guidelines and policies, open an article content RFC or try mediation. This proposal would cause serious problems. Durova ^Charge! 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the adjustment, but my objection remains. I'll add another aspect to the objection above: this confuses the existence of a conflict of interest with violation of the conflict of interest guideline. It's possible to possess a conflict of interest and edit in accordance with all policies and guidelines - even in mainspace. For example, if a Microsoft employee reverts obvious vandalism at the Microsoft article. Durova ^Charge! 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Object - Using Wikipedia talk pages to ask somebody else to make improper edits is also a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, but we ever see anything like that we hardly need WP:COI to address it. -- Justanother 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually it could be necessary to invoke WP:COI. See WP:CANVASS. Durova ^Charge! 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support. WP:COI accusations need to be shown including what is wrong with them in view of the goal to achieve an encyclopedic article. COFS 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Opppose current wording. Just because someone has a conflict of interest does not mean the edits are going to be abusive and/or NPOV. I go around AfD from time to time and sometimes the articles involving COI are pretty neutral, but the user writing it obviously shares a name with the topic at hand. This usually isn't the only reason to delete it, just gives more incentive to do so. However, I'll agree, there are abusive incidents of COI, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rosner (the article is now about a scientist). Kwsn ^(Ni!) 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe Justanother meant "npov editing" derived from a Conflict of Interest, and simply called it "COI Editing". It seems he's guilty of mixing the usage of a) the state of 'having COI' with b) the act of making "NPOV COI edits". (Since he griped about my using a relaxed definition of COI in my above statement) heh. Peace. Lsi john 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:V

15) The threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Where would this pertain to? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova ^Charge! 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Since Wikipedia relies on verifiable previously published information its articles necessarily reflect the limitations of that verifiability. Longstanding members of any organization may be well read about its structure and history, of course, but Wikipedian consensus acceptance of their edits must weigh in terms of site policy. The corrolary applies equally to any organization's longstanding critics. Durova ^Charge! 06:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• No comment. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. I would be curious though how "verifiability" is defined in this context. COFS 02:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:NOT

16) Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox. Offsite recruitment of like-minded people is not an acceptable way to resolve perceived problems in article balance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova ^Charge! 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Abusive use of this process to mount accusations against editors who are not me. This "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. COFS 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• Then I guess it is me that is accused. Durova, you may as well say that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a social network service and one should not recruit their friends to come edit Wikipedia with them. That would be equally true in what Wikipedia is NOT and equally exclusionary and wrong in its application of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." You would add "unless you are a Scientologist that was invited to edit by another Scientologist." Ridiculous and prejudicial. Again. It is not who or what you are. It is not who asked you to come here or how you found out about Wikipedia. It is HOW YOU EDIT. -- Justanother 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Prejudice is a serious accusation, Justanother. Yet more serious is the contention that I let a supposed bigotry color my decisions as an editor and an administrator. If you can support that claim with any evidence at all, please enter it formally with demonstrational diffs at the evidence page. Durova ^Charge! 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Durova, please stop taking things so personally and please stop trying to make this arb about you. You outright accused me of impropriety in my desire to get other Scientologists involved in this project. That would be in your evidence section entitled "Appearance of impropriety". You impugned my veracity with "For these reasons I do not trust Justanother's assertions." I have the right to answer those charges. I did not say that you were a bigot, I said that your proposal is ridiculous and prejudicial. Prejudical in both senses of the word; Detrimental; injurious and Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions. The proposed principle, Durova, not you! And, FWIW, the only impropriety that I have accused you of is not sending this case back to WP:COIN where it belonged and I have not accused you of that formally here. So enough with the thin skin, already. Please. -- Justanother 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• It makes absolutely no difference whether the subject at hand is Scientology, gothic music, or Australian school pranks. When an editor pursues offsite recruitment in preference to normal site processes, that is prejudicial to the integrity of the Wikipedia and that is the only meaning of prejudice that carries any currency in this context. Durova ^Charge! 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• That's better, thanks. Yes, we can disagree about your position on that. Wikipedia is a big project. Perhaps, potentially, the biggest project. There is plenty of room for all the physicists, all the furries, all the Catholics to edit here. The ideal scene (as we say in Scientology) for Wikipedia is that every literate person on Earth contribute. We can all do our part toward reaching that scene. -- Justanother 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm glad we can agree there. Durova ^Charge! 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:NPOV

17) A neutral point of view does not assert one perspective as truth or act in service to the promotional aims of any group or organization. Since the neutral point of view is depent upon verifiable and reliable sources, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to correct perceived imbalances in real world reportage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Durova ^Charge! 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

SupportIt's my understanding that NPOV is not manipulating sources and writing to create a neutral sounding article as much as it is letting the evidence(source) speak for itself. For example when reading the article about Adolph Hitler one will probably recognize he wasn't portrayed in a neutral way (rightly so, since WP:V and WP:RS sources generally asses him as a monster.) However hypothetically, if a reliable/verifiable source were to describe him as a humanitarian it would be violating NPOV to ignore it. Anynobody 07:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• CancelThis "principle" has no relation to the case at hand. 205.227.165.244 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• The above comment uses the same word choice as all the previous comments by COFS. Curiously, this voluntarily disclosed IP address (205.227.165.244) resolves to the Church of Scientology. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that this is my IP address? COFS 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

No editor can be considered disruptive simply by virtue of who or what they are.

18) Before making their first edit, no "class of editors" is inherently disruptive. Not people with a COI, not Scientologists, not even " Office of Special Affairs (OSA) operatives" (whatever that is). This is a logical extension of the very nature of Wikipedia as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and of WP:AGF. This is not to say that some people's edits will not be scrutinized more quickly or more closely than another's but proper WP:DR remedies must be followed and no-one should be railroaded out of here unjustly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I make this proposal because User:Fahrenheit451 has long maintained that there is such a thing as "Church of Scientology-directed editors" and his user page "Guide" presupposes that such are disruptive of this project. Durova has also cast aspersions on my enlisting fellow Scientologists to help with this project as if the "Scientologist class of editors" is inherently disruptive. -- Justanother 19:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Justanother, I suggest you refactor your comment as it is a lie. You are twisting "church of scientology-directed editors" into "scientologist class of editors". Is posting such lies to this workshop disruptive?-- Fahrenheit451 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

"Church of Scientology-directed editors" would be more of a WP:COI than a WP:DE issue since such editors would be holding the interests of the CoS above those of Wikipedia. Any disruption they cause would stem from that factor. Compare two hypothetical editors:

Why is editor x being disruptive? Editor x has a mental illness which limits their self control.
Why is editor y being disruptive? Editor y is receiving directives from group z. One person can't help being disruptive, the other is simply doing what the outside group tells them. Anynobody 06:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it would be better stated along the lines of; An editor cannot be considered disruptive (and thus "worthy" of immediate revert to tie in your example) until a reasonable amount of good faith has been given. Anynobody 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Agreed. It would be very wrong of me to go around reverting a Chicago Cubs fan's work, just because they like the Cubs and I like the Milwaukee Brewers. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 23:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I think what Justanother is saying is this:

1. Editor A makes a new account, his first edit is to his user page, saying he's a Scientologist.
2. Same person edits a Scientology related article, but the edits are only typo fixes, grammar fixes, and providing a source for a statement, not disruptive from pretty much anyone's point of view.
3. Editor B, who has a beef with Scientologists, sees Editor A's user page, assumes the person to be disruptive without looking at the edits, and reverts them.

Editor B reverted Editor A's edits just because A was a Scientologist (even if the edits were not disruptive), which is a serious breach of WP:AGF. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 22:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Forget old grudges

19) Punishing, shaming, or vengefully pursuing another editor is disallowed on Wikipedia, regardless of grievances. Old grudges are to be forgotten, not kept alive beyond their natural lifespan. [The next couple of sentences added as an afterthought 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC) :] This applies especially to interaction between regular editors. Since admins are in a position of power, even lengthy attempts by non-admin users to seek their admonishment or de-sysopping for abuse of the admin tools ought always to be tolerated, this side of harassment. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Kinda "Wikipedia is not a battlefield" on a person-to-person level. Thinking about wording. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Endorse in principle. I see potential problems with regard to long term vandals such as JB196 or AWilliamson who really did take a long time to uncover. Durova ^Charge! 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. The relevance of this proposed principle goes to the evidence I have posted about the conflict between Anynobody and Justanother. So do my proposed finding of fact, remedy, and enforcement below. I'm not any too happy about the wording of any of them, but I thought I ought to say something here about the purpose of my evidence. Any tweaking suggestions and other comments on these proposals will be appreciated. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Endorse in principle. Making edits and pursuing processes for the purpose of obtaining retribution against another editor for an old disagreement or mistake, not linked to any recent or ongoing problems, can be extremely disruptive regardless of the merits of the original disagreement. Newyorkbrad 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Reply to Durova above: Well, I think such cases as you mention would be covered by "not beyond their natural lifespan". The lifespan of the case of a long-term vandal is naturally long. Anynobody's ever-fresh resentment at Justanother over the AfD'ing of Barbara Schwarz in March 2007, and its ever-lengthening aftermath of a deleted RfC etc etc, ought, by contrast, to have been put to sleep a long time ago. But perhaps an exception should be made for admin actions? I have experimentally added a couple of sentences to that effect, because I feel there should be no statute of limitations for a user's attempts to get what s/he sees as justice against admin abuse. Admins have too much power, and too much mutual loyalty, and regular users have too little recourse against them, for the admin to need or deserve any further protection. I thought, for instance, that those people were misguided who argued in the Inshaneee arbitration that Worldtraveller ought to have "gotten over" Inshaneee's unjust block when a month had gone by. Necessarily, then, I haven't proposed that Anynobody be restrained from sniping at me. I'm a big bad admin, I can take it. Bishonen | talk 13:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC). reply

WP:COI, WP:MEAT and Organizations

20) When multiple editors make COI edits to promote the same organization's interests, then all shall be considered to be the same virtual person for the purpose of applying Wikipedia's policies. Warnings or blocks applied to one shill apply equally to all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jehochman ^Talk 04:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

WP:AGF qualifies, but does not trump, WP:COI guidelines

21) WP:AGF implies that we should not consider as unacceptable edits made by an editor simply because they may have a conflict of interest. Similarly, personal attacks, tendentious editing and edit warring are all to be expected to some extent in controversial subjects. None of these considerations individually condemns an editor or their actions; it is in combination that they become unacceptable under the conflict of interest guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed If this is not the correct interpretation of how AGF interacts with COI, I really hope the arbitrators can tell us what is. Sheffield Steel ^talkers _stalkers 04:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

This is exactly what I have felt all along, thank you for articulating it so well. (Support) Anynobody 05:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Let's expand the traditional definition of Conflict of Interest to include "beliefs".

22) I noticed that that is what we seem to be doing in the "Proposed Decision" under Conflict of Interest:

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

I think that we should discuss that. The "traditional" definition of conflict of interest is usually along the lines of the general definition given in our article here, to wit:

"More generally, conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit."

And when we talk "benefit" we are not talking some subjective satisfaction of "a job well done in accordance with one's beliefs" or some such, we are talking tangible benefit in the form of money, increased business traffic, job promotion, etc.

By adding the word "beliefs" to that traditional definition we can open up a can of worms such as Wikipedia has never seen, IMHO. Now every editor on one side of any issue can each accuse the editors on the other side of having WP:COI issues because they believe strongly on one side or another of the issue.

• Scientologists can say that Scientology critics have a COI . . . and vice-versa.
• Evolutionists cannot edit any more because Creationists will say that their beliefs constitute a COI . . . and vice versa.
• Holocaust "revisionists" can claim that anyone that believes that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered has a conflict of interest . . . and vice versa.

I think that, before we open that Pandora's box, we might want to waste a word or two.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Justanother 21:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Unclear proposal When an editor makes edits that advance the aims of outside parties or causes at the expense of Wikipedia's goals, that's a conflict of interest. COI is based on behavior, not what somebody feels in their heart. COI editing is revealed by tendentiousness, and by persistent violation of site standards. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Exactly my point. Or at least one of my points. My proposed principle aligns with the proposed decision if we are adding "beliefs" to the mix. -- Justanother 02:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Not here This is the worst place to discuss changes to those guidelines. Many of the editors here have an interest in the outcome, and more importantly the debate would get little exposure to other editors' input. I'd suggest Talk:conflict of interest or better yet the village pump. Sheffield Steel ^talkers _stalkers 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The problem is that the arbitrators have, perhaps unwittingly, already made that change without a principle to back it up. I am providing the principle here and an opportunity for discussion. The problem is that once the arbitrators "rule" in that manner, it sets a precedent that will be used, misused, and abused from here on out. -- Justanother 03:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

What if the arbitrators are merely interpreting policy differently to you? This may not result in a precedent so much as an application to a specific set of circumstances. It could just be that the COI guidelines need to be clarified, rather than changed.

To my mind, the spirit of the law is perfectly clear: you may have a COI, and should take extra precautions, if in the real world you are linked with the subject of an article. I think that there is some danger in extending a list of 'qualifiers', because the longer the list becomes, the more likely it is that someone will interpret this as meaning that the list defines exactly the set of qualifiers - which would imply that anything not on the list is okay. Your suggestion includes duties, allegiances, or beliefs. What about employment, investments, ownership, parenthood, subscription, election campaign promises...? There are too many individual circumstances to list. Sheffield Steel ^talkers _stalkers 03:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

comment: 2)... or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point .... I don't think this statement is meant to exclude or caution anyone because of his beliefs. Controversial issues will probably always contain different viewpoints and beliefs and every editor wich edits such articles must be precautious not to push his own belief but making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point. I agree with Justanother that there is no need to caution every Scientologist but don't think there is a change in the statement from the arbitrators neccessary.-- Stan _talk 06:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Conflict of interest involves exterior concerns

23) True COI only exists for those with a true EXTERIOR conflict that would compromise their ability to edit uninfluenced by EXTERIOR concerns. We do not get into a person's INTERIOR or subjective concerns. Often, editors here have strong feelings about issues they edit and editors almost always edit from their POV, if by POV we simply mean the understanding that a particular person has about a subject. A proper editor would respect other POVs but that does not preclude the editor being VERY interested that their POV is represented correctly. INTERIOR concerns may be tendentious, may be soap-boxing, may be any number of things that are not allowed here. They are not COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - I still think it would be helpful for the arbitration panel to address the concept that COI is about an editor's feelings or beliefs. I still see the concept put forth that Scientologists have an a priori COI because of their beliefs. Scientologist believe in "truth", just like most other people. Happens that Scientologists look at, engage in, and experience things that most others do not so their "truth" is different. So what, we all have different "truth" based on our own personal universe of experience. That does not mean that we cannot come to agreements and find ways to live edit together. In many cases, Scientologists simply want their POV represented correctly. That is one of the biggest beefs that Scientologists have here, that critics and uninformed parties try to represent what Scientology is to a Scientologist, ie. what are the "beliefs and practices", what is "doctrine", and fight when Scientologists try to correct that misrepresentation. That critics and uninformed parties try to dictate what is the "truth" about Scientology, when all they really know is what is the "truth" about criticism of Scientology. -- Justanother 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Justanother, that's essentially what I've been saying a WP:COI is, and when Scientologists remove or reword material from WP:RS in order to make it less negative sounding toward the CoS they are probably doing so under a COI. What that means is, whether intentional or not, these edits affect the POV nature of an article. Anynobody 06:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC) reply

(copied from Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Merge proposal) AN, I am happy that you liked my summation but I am not sure that you understood the distinction that I made between interior and exterior concerns. . . . [COI is a] person or situation EXTERIOR to [the editor] asking, urging, paying, prohibiting, whatever that he edit a certain way. . . . [On the other hand, if] a Scientologist believes that Scientology is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that casting Scientology in a bad light is just plain wrong (as in misrepresentation) and they seek to remove these misrepresentations based simply on their own thoughts and feelings (no matter how they came to have those thoughts and feelings) then that is an INTERIOR concern. And as I already said, their interior concerns may lead them to make tendentious or even disruptive edits here but that is NOT COI. -- Justanother 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

However it's important to note that what a Scientologist calls misrepresentation may be exactly what a WP:RS says is fact. For example this article is a source used in some Scientology articles here: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power Monday, May. 06, 1991 By RICHARD BEHAR Time magazine. I've seen Scientologists remove it a few times, I've also seen instances when they have rephrased an assertion to sound less specific than the source is or treat Church sources as WP:RS rather than a self published assertion by the subject of CoS articles.

To illustrate my point, use the Time article to write a summary of either the CoS or L Ron Hubbard of 1-3 paragraphs. If you find it difficult, consider that I might just have a point about external views/feelings about the subject of an article can affect an editor's neutrality. As someone who actually participates the effect is multiplied. Anynobody 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Time's highly biased article aside, based on your reply elsewhere, I think that you are defining interior/exterior differently than I. I define them as interior or exterior to the person. A belief is interior, someone telling you to do something is exterior. I think you have been defining it as interior or exterior to Wikipedia. That is certainly a valid differentiation of something just not of what I consider COI. Wikipeida has no interior opinion of anything other than itself (how to edit, etc.) All opinions of Scientology are exterior to Wikipedia. IMO, your definition of interior vs. exterior does not lead to a workable definition of conflict of interest; mine does. -- Justanother 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Your answer only goes to prove my point, respectfully though, it's not just my opinion:

When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict.

—  Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

When you disregard or diminish an article you think of as biased but everyone else thinks of as reliable you're ruining WP:NPOV which is not dictated by accuracy so much as what sources/references have to say. If the sources all say one thing, for us to say anything different would be original research.

If I'm misunderstanding your definition, would you kindly include a hypothetical example of COI as you see it? Anynobody 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that I have made my position abundantly clear. We disagree on what constitutes an "outside interest". You seem to think that editing in accordance with what one knows to be the truth, when one's view of what is "truth" is not the majority view, is an "outside interest". I say it is not. There is nothing in that scenario that has anything to do with COI. I say that you are trying to smear COI to every editor that disagrees with you. That is a cheap shot and will get you nowhere. The person that holds a minority view is more than welcome to edit here and is free to use all the tools available to him to see that the article reflects what he knows to be the truth. Especially when he is much more informed about the subject than those that hold the minority view, no matter how "popular" it may be. On the subject of COI, I already said that "outside interests" mean exterior concerns. I will add that I mean concerns exterior to the editor and of a tangible nature. Tangible and directly and specifically bearing on editing Wikipedia, not some vague interpretation of some belief you think they hold. -- Justanother 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I won't ask for you to explain it anymore if you don't wish to. When reading over the thread I get the impression you mean:

Internal concerns

Thoughts/beliefs which motivate an editor.

External concerns

Other people motivating an editor by asking for or rewarding certain edits.

Certainly other people can provoke COI issues like you said by asking, paying, etc. However one's own biases and internal concerns can prompt them too. Which is why I pointed out the Time article. It clearly is anti Scientology, but it is also WP:RS, WP:V. Therefore, in order for us to present the article in a NPOV way the tone is going to sound anti Scientology. If there were an article in another RS,V source like the Wall Street Journal singing the praises of Scientology, then it could be used to neutralize a negative tone in a NPOV way. Trying to neutralize an article's tone any other way is adding POV. If I (as a perceived critic) tried to keep it (hypothetical WSJ source) out of the article, I'd be committing the same POV violation myself. That's what NPOV means, a POV free of our individual biases as editors instead using reliable sources to convey POV.

Here's an example of my "Scientology": Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)#Prelude

In the late 1930s, the Soviet Union tried to form an anti-German alliance with the United Kingdom, France and Poland.

I know that statement is just Soviet propaganda because I've studied the Soviet Union under Stalin. The problem is that there are no RS,V references I'm aware of to satisfy NPOV, OR, and other rules which would allow me to put that assertion into the article. Anynobody 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Good, you have "duplicated" my position ("duplicated" is Scientology for create a duplicate in your own universe = understand; it is the mechanism of understanding). And if I duplicate your position it is that you think that internal concerns can lead to COI. I say no, they can lead to any number of other violations here but not COI. Of course there is a gray area; nothing is black/white. For example, if by "cleaning up Wikipedia" (by which I mean getting the lies, POV, bad sourcing, etc, out of the articles), I gain approval from my peers, from other Scientologists, does that mean I have a COI. You might say yes, but if you extend that concept to other topics you see that it is untenable. For example, if by "cleaning up Wikipedia" (by which I mean getting the lies, POV, bad sourcing, etc, out of the articles), a physics professor gains approval from his peers, from other physics professors, does that mean the physics professor has a COI. Rather than get into gray areas it is best if we consider COI to be COI in the sense that a government agency considers COI, actual tangible external concerns. Not a warm fuzzy feeling you get from a job well done. Because if warm, fuzzy feelings and pats on the back = COI, then this whole project is in more trouble than it already is. And we have enough work to do to keep this project on the rails without accusing every editor that opposes us of COI. -- Justanother 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Good deal, it's a relief to know I understand your definition. I have seen evidence, in your own editing, which documents the points I've been making. Everybody makes mistakes, this is a fact. When looking at these diffs and my comments please understand I'm not trying to imply any superiority to you, however in these errors lie telltale COI caused POV.

This definitely needed some work, but you deleted the whole paragraph. Dianazene isn't used now in Narconon since it doesn't exist anymore. However the cited source, as you know, says Niacin is what "runs-out" toxins in Narconon's treatment. It also compares the stories of Niacin working are identical to those of Dianazene. I'm guessing either an editor with a less than complete understanding of English or an extremely lazy one with no excuse was trying to point that out. Dianazene being a not-so-bright spot in Scientology's history with the law, sounds like information someone with an positive POV wants to overlook.

POV pushing on your part, the quintessential sign of unrealized COI.
Original sentence: Scientology claims to be applicable in all facets of life, including programs for organizational management...

Since "claims" is a word to avoid, I could see changing it to something like says.
Your sentence: Scientology includes material applicable to all facets of life, including programs for organizational management. This implies that Scientology is endorsed by Wikipedia since we're not merely explaining their (Scientologists) beliefs to a reader but are actually saying Scientology has answers to help deal with all aspects of life.

Certainly that is what their literature and followers believe, but most RSs are not as supportive. This means that such an assertion is POV by claiming Scientology works. We're not supposed to say it works or it doesn't, unless it's in a RS of course. Coming from a Scientologist, for whom I assume it does work for, it really shouldn't be that surprising that they might tend to favor the CoS. Essentially, they are opposites to negative POV pushing editors which shouldn't be tolerated either. In short when an editor edits a subject important to them, COI is a very real possibility which can only be confirmed by a tendency to make mistakes favoring the side one "likes" most, and minimizing views by those they do not. Anynobody 05:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Laff, I guess I should have know that this was all leading up to being about me. But I guess "hope springs eternal" that we could have a discussion without you trying to make it about me and my edits. Very soon now, my friend. Take your last shots -- Justanother 11:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm simply pointing out that your definition of COI is incomplete, especially in light of some of the other things you said on here (COI is proven through actions not affiliation is what I thought you were saying under the proposal called: COI editing is a mainspace problem and charges of COI must be based on abusive edits that have the clear goal of forwarding a COI in mainspace.) I'm not sure I'd use the word abuse when discussing people who are unaware of their COI. I think it would only be appropriate to use the term when discussing editors who know they have a COI but edit anyway. Anynobody 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Earlier in a different thread I asked for some examples of what you consider harassment from me, you didn't seem eager or able to cite any. Take your last shots sounds like you think my behavior here has been harassment by pointing out examples of your own editing which show this proposal to be weak. Honestly looking back on this thread I don't see myself as taking any "shots" at you, unless you consider a "shot" as any mention by me of editing on your part which may have been contrary to a policy or guideline? Anynobody 04:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

24) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Several accounts from one IP

1) Several of the accounts involved in this case have edited from the same IP(s).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No comment: anything I might say is dependent on the checkuser conclusions. Durova ^Charge! 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, see evidence. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Scientology in general

2) The subject of Scientology and related topics are extremely controversial both on and off Wikipedia. As such, it is hard to find a neutral source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see the necessity of this. Durova ^Charge! 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, first part goes with out saying, second is in evidence. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 03:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The last sentence sounds like a content ruling to me, but I could be wrong. (It's late.) Sean William @ 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Church of Scientology history of suppressing information

3) The Church of Scientology has demonstrated a strong interest in preventing the dissemination of certain information about its activities, through a history of attacks upon writers and publishers of such information. This history has included criminal harassment of journalists and writers; infiltration of government agencies; defamation; lawsuits intended "to harass and discourage, rather than to win" against individuals and organs of the press; and attacks on Internet services.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this is relevant to this case. I've seen no evidence presented that anyone involved has committed any egregious acts here, or even anything vaguely related to any such acts; if they had, this case would be simple. We're talking POV-pushing here, not criminal harassment. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

We should stick to the facts at hand. Fubar Obfusco, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Take these complaints elsewhere, please. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Submit evidence, please, before proposing conclusions. Wikipedia arbitration handles matters at Wikipedia. This is very strong stuff. No opinion yet except disappointment that a very large and heavy cart has been set before any horse. Durova ^Charge! 18:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

These facts are well-documented in the cited sources from the above-linked articles. -- FOo 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that it is very dangerous for the Arbitration Committee to form a position on the Church of Scientology as a whole. This is Wikipedia; let's focus on what happened here. Sean William @ 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

In contrast, I think it would be very dangerous for the Arbitration Committee to ignore larger organizational behavior patterns, of which the actions on Wikipedia form only a small part. -- FOo 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The organizational patterns are relevant only to the extent that those patterns influence WP:COI in the cofs-connected editors.-- Fahrenheit451 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• The items listed above do not relate to 'this case'. To my knowledge there have been no lawsuits filed wrt COFS/Misou/et al. and no 'history of attacks' on publishers or writers. Peace. Lsi john 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This is not about Scientology religion as much as it is about Conflicts of interest

4) In this case lies the essence of why WP:COI exists, editing to advance outside interests.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest.

—  Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

The concept Scientology could easily be exchanged with the Paranormal which is also the subject of a recent arbcom. COI does not dictate people who believe in the paranormal are forbidden to edit related articles. Presuming they abide by ideas like WP:V, WP:RS, etc. all are welcome. In regard to the paranormal, most if not all acceptable (by the standards just mentioned) references do not give the authenticity believers think they should. Editors who are unable to accept this are more likely to make contributions designed to enhance their groups exposure rather than expand Wikipedia in the way it was meant to be.

Like Paranormal, this boils down to editors who believe mainstream sources don't provide the tools to create what they perceive as WP:NPOV articles. To fix this they either advocate loosening the standards, or simply ignoring perfectly valid references in the name of WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Certainly the case isn't about Scientology other than that "Scientology" is the example, in this case, of the issues we're trying to work out here; what Scientology actually is is irrelevant to this case. It's about more than COI, though. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence, Anynobody 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A person editing under a conflict of interest is a person with an outside interest in the subject at hand, either positive or negative, and consistently makes edits like those in my evidence: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence#COFS (talk • contribs • logs) is an example of how WP:COI leads to other trouble. Anynobody 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think this is necessary. Durova ^Charge! 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand it may seem a bit like stating the obvious, but some might see it differently and argue this is about Scientology itself. It's my understanding that ideally the principles established in this case would be applicable to other COI issues in different topics. (If the case were a solution for Scientology COIs only it might seem like we're treating them differently IMHO.) Anynobody 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The only extent to which this is in doubt, Anynobody, is what I discern through a critical reading of your own posts to this case. Durova ^Charge! 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Would you please be more specific? To clarify the way I understand this issue to be is like this:

Problem: COI, Subject: Scientology, Concern: Edits made by members from Scientology IP addresses on Scientology related articles. Proof: Except for Su-Jada, all the accounts tracked to the IPs have 100 % of their most edited articles Scientology related. Whereas editors like Justanother who is a member, but not editing from the IPs in question, has 73% of the items on his list related to the CoS. Anynobody 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That makes your point more clear. Still, I don't see the need for this. Durova ^Charge! 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I was hoping that the principles established or clarified here could be applied to similar situations in the future. For hypothetical example, a flood of edits to the Westboro Baptist Church from their IP which violate policies and guidelines. It's easy for me to see situations like this popping up with groups besides Scientology. Anynobody 02:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that there is more involved than just COI. My intention was to make it clear that Scientology is being discussed so much simply because the COI aspect not it's worthiness as a religious belief. (Since the actual WP:COI text did not include religious groups and instead focused on business interests I was pointing out the use of a trademark by this group indicates such interests do apply in this case as well.) Anynobody 06:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

RejectWhere an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests should be the issue but is not at all. No evidence for that, nothing proposed on that, but a lot of other stuff, all Scientology. The issue is Scientology, proof: the whole discussion about "pro-" and "anti-" Scientology editors, the attempts of Foobaz (a regular editor in the Scientology articles, 100% negative edits) and Stan En (same, 100% negative edits) to infiltrate this ArbCom with cult-bashing rhetoric, and last but not least the fact that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY other than those pro/anti cultist are interested in this proceeding here. Farce. And why? Because WP:DR, WP:CSN and all other mediation and resolution processes have been fully and intentionally ignored. Why that? I don't know, maybe to get COFS booted faster? Fact is, the army was called to handle a parking violation and is now trying to handle a parking matter with tanks and cannons. Misou 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of situations like those uncovered by Wikiscanner when I made this proposal. I'd advocate treating the BBC or Electronic Arts the same way as the issue is almost identical. Editors using company resources to edit that companies article. Given that this type of problem may be more widespread than most thought it seems like even more reason to reaffirm the COI aspects of this case in the decision. Anynobody 07:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

And 'Conflict of Interest' requires that we demonstrate that an editor has edited with bias in a way that inhibited the advancement of the aims of Wikipedia in deference to their outside interests. For example, if a user 'always' and 'only' removes 'unsourced negative information', are they editing with Conflict of Interest? If their edits are in keeping with wikipedia sourcing policies, are they guilty of COI? I think not. However, if so, then should we not also apply the same standard to those who 'only' remove 'unsourced positive information'? Peace. Lsi john 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:CSN usage.

5) The current usage of WP:CSN bypasses the normal WP:DR process and allows disputes to be escalated without going through normal dispute resolution steps.

Addl: Evidence for this proposal is the entire thread at CSN related to COFS. Community sanctions (bans & blocks) are a 'last step' in the dispute resolution process. In the case of COFS, none of the dispute resolution steps were followed and a thread, properly opened at WP:COIN, was improperly directed to WP:CSN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Object, obviously. This puts the cart before the horse. If any evidence for this is forthcoming I can cite plenty in refutation, but the matter belongs on the evidence page before it comes here. Durova ^Charge! 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. I may expand on that theme later. -- Justanother 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree. WP:ARB says: "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.". There has not been any dispute resolution process, the latter steps being being laid out as

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for general disputes
• Wikipedia:Third opinion, for disputes involving only two editors
• Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue.
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, for problems with uncivil editors

none of which was done. Another step before an ArbCom is called is mediation. No attempt for mediation was done or even asked for by Jehochman/Durova who initiated this case. This ArbCom proceeding is violating Wikipedia's core policies of "consensus building", "avoidance of bias" and "respect of others contributions". COFS 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This case is evidence of the statement. No RfC, No COIN sanctions, No mediation. No official 'findings' or DR was followed. No evidence of COI was presented at CSN and none was requested, yet COFS was offered a 3 month community ban, and we were told 'this is an abusive user which blocks have failed to correct.' Peace. Lsi john 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Misuse of process by Anynobody

6) Anynobody has since at least March 2007 complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence, and sometimes without relevance to mainspace editing, on WP:ANI, a variety of user talkpages, and other fora, some of them clearly not intended for such use. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Perhaps "harassment" would be the proper charge here? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Bishonen, I think you are still just angry at me for maintaining you made an error when you deleted the RfC re: Justanother. Frankly I don't see how you can see a request for admin as a misuse of process, as I remember it either you or he brought up the RfC in question there before I did (which by the way is what happened here, I didn't bring this up you did. so please try to be fair about this. I also think you have misunderstood my 1st editor review. After the RfC was deleted, and I didn't understand why, I figured I must've been doing something wrong so I asked for input about my actions in the dispute from uninvolved editors. This, again, is hard to see as an abuse of process since I just wanted feedback on my editing habits not Justanother's. I find it ironic that in an environment where he would have us believe that WP:AGF is as important as it is that you would accuse me of intentionally trying to... what are you accusing me of trying to do? Get feedback, allow editors the opportunity to comment about another user (you're acting like the RfC was my attempt to get him booted off of here but if you understood anything about me at all you'd know that I don't want anyone blocked or banned), or asking for the tools to help deal with some of the admin backlogs? I've even said that if it turns out that I'm right and you did delete the RfC hastily I'm not asking for it to be redone or any "punishment"... I just want to know why a biased admin can unilaterally delete a RfC about one of their friends after it had been approved (it really is a simple request, and your answers that not enough effort was made and it was older than 48 hours don't sway me after it had been approved. At the very least you could explain why the admin who approved it messed up in approving it.) Anynobody 08:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I looked into the RFC and the problem was lack of proper verification for previous dispute resolution attempts. It isn't sufficient to cite things such as user page warning templates; what matters is genuine outreach. To add to Bishonen's observations, Anynobody has sought out my advice repeatedly and then disregarded most of it. I have asked this editor to enter formal mentorship, disengage from conflict with Justanother, submit evidence of policy violations by COFS et. al., and acknowledge responsibility for past mistakes. Anynobody was responsive to my feedback about a user signature and a user talk page image, which are trivial matters, and provided delays and excuses regarding the rest. After a while a pattern emerges: X was never explained sufficiently, Y was a misunderstanding, Z was someone else's mistake. All this fuss needs a foundation of evidence that Anynobody ought to have provided. This is like loading a heap of anchovies onto a pizza that doesn't have any crust: if the pie bakes anyway it's only because someone else put dough in the oven. Durova ^Charge! 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I have succeeded in creating a lot of misunderstanding so I will be as direct as I can in responding.

RfC:
IF it fails, it fails... why I submitted it anyway.
...my intention in listing myself was making it clear I'm willing to accept accountability for any errors I've made. I had also assumed any errors would have been explained in a logical way. Especially since the RfC in question had been approved: Image:Rfc2.png and diff too: [5]
I should have been blunt about the others having problems
I assumed that whoever was reviewing the RfC would check for themselves to see if there really was behavior worth the RfC, other outreach attempts made earlier hadn't worked.
Smee in October 2006 2 Smee more recently
Fahrenheit451 also from October 2006
Antaeus Feldspar, October 2006...could've been a bit more diplomatic but does make it clear he wants to discuss a disagreement.
Mine was simply the most recent attempt:
outreach on Justanother's talk page and his response on there and on my talk page his page and my page. Here are my responses: on his page and mine.
My original editor review: At this point I'm wondering if the system doesn't work, or if I've been screwing up. Thank you for your time
Summary of my attitude: on COI on punishment My RfA
(PS Newyorkbrad they are friendly on here, what would be a better way to describe their relationship in regards to each other?) Anynobody 01:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Anynobody, I've changed my mind about you. I used to think you did this intentionally, and truly thought you were trolling me in the conversations related to 'government reports', and when it looked like you were trying to 'feed' Smee good ideas. I realize now that you aren't doing this intentionally. You simply 'don't get it'.

In fairness, I can relate to that. I struggled for years with learning when to 'let things go', and I still haven't quite mastered it. (Take my frustration with Durova as an example).

For what it's worth, here is some free advice... you are the only one who cares about your RfC. No offense, really. It's just a fact. Nobody really cares about what you meant, or what you thought, or whether or not you believe it was certified. That doesn't mean we don't care about you, it simply means it wasn't a significant event in our lives. Bishonen did what she thought was right. You objected. People backed up Bishonen's decision. At this point, it really really really doesn't matter whether they really thought she was right, or were just backing their buddy. 'Learn when do let things go'. The fact that you're still explaining .... is trolling. Let it go.

In the same way that you 'want to be understood', or 'want to help people understand why they are wrong', sometimes people just want to be allowed to be wrong. Sometimes people really aren't wrong, and are simply tired of trying to explain it to you. In my case, there is no way that Durova is going to hear my commplaints, and I need to accept that and move past it. I've been choosing to allow her to ruin my experience of wikipedia. I need to change that, and so I'm going to. I hereby declare that I will no longer count the number of times that she tells us how important and right she is.

Let's walk together into the future and put this crap behind us. ok?

(NYB, if this needs to be moved, so be it.. feel free to move it to the talkpage. Hopefully AN will read it before you do.)

Peace. Lsi john 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. The abuse of process has included using Anynobody's own request for adminship, [6] his own userpage [7] [8], and his own Editor review [9] [10] as showcases for his complaints against Justanother. See my evidence and the proposed principle above. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Anynobody, I don't think references such as "biased admin" or assuming that one user is another's friend based on an administrator action are going to helpful either in improving relations between editors or in assisting the arbitrators' deciding the case. Moderate language, here as elsewhere, is often a virtue. Newyorkbrad 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Anynobody—so all this is happening to you because I'm angry and unfair? Are you going to start talking about you versus Justanother any time soon? Offering counter-evidence, that kind of thing? Because "you versus me" has no natural place in this arbitration. It's a waste of space and a reckless drain on people's attention. I will address the only coloring you have for it— this diff and your mistaken notions about my relation to Bishzilla—on the talkpage. I do not indeed expect to "sway" you—no, no, been there—but it might be of interest to other people. Well, just barely, perhaps. But still. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC). reply

I am very sorry I didn't respond sooner Bishonen, I did not notice your post earlier. I hadn't planned on discussing the WP:DR issue re: Justanother at all because it seemed irrelevant to this situation.

• If you thought my inclusion of him in my evidence was meant to somehow "get satisfaction" for the RfC/U then you were very wrong. The issue here is COI posed by editors using Scientology resources to edit Scientology articles. Since Justanother is a Scientologist, not editing from the IPs in question, but also editing many of the same articles he and Braveheartbear make a good control group. As I said a day or two ago in the most recent refinement of my evidence, when the amount of time CoS IP using editors is compared to the non-IP using editors a difference can be seen. (78% for JA/BHB compared to 96%of the others.)

Anytime I mention him you and he both seem to think I'm out to get him in trouble somehow, which is the only way I can rationalize your suggestions. The truth is that for better or worse my experience here has included dealing with Justanother, therefore when I talk about my experiences with other editors he may come up and if he does it doesn't mean I'm campaigning to "do something" about him.

If you want to talk about your relationship with him, Bishzilla, or anything else along those lines then feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. I have always said I'm willing to listen if I've misunderstood something. I'd post to your talk page, but... well you know.

Regarding this allegation, my misuse of process I haven't paid much attention to this section because I feel it's absurd for a few reasons but I'll just explain the main issue. Didn't it occur to you that if the original RfC/U had not been deleted AND IT WAS a misuse, the other editors/admins would have pointed out or deleted it? (Since WP:RFC/U warns that all participants will be scrutinized.) The irony is that if you were right, but hadn't deleted the RFC/U, your point would have been proven in a way which would have eliminated any question in my mind of personal issues driving your actions. (Either because you are friendly with Justanother, or as I have also said, because your ego could not handle it actually being approved after you said it should not have been.) Anynobody 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Editing by COFS

7) COFS has removed sourced material due to the point of view expressed. [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

This is consistent with my experience, so I agree. Anynobody 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Durova ^Charge! 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse This has been my experience. Sheffield Steel ^talkers _stalkers 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Reject for several reasons: WP:IAR was applied here on a bogus, i.e. non-RS, source with reasoning given. The current version of the article - since more than a months now - is stable without this exact source but has found a WP:V-compliant wording, i.e. showing the exact circumstances of the quote used. There has no harm been done nor Wikipedia policy being violated. I agree though that my comment "We have been through this for months and months, over and over and it still is some solitary POV by an anticultist who is paid for what he says" referred to the exact same discussion earlier on the Scientology article COFS 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Anynobody very stubborn user

8) Anynobody link many many hrair times to statement by Bishzilla, saying link sum up Bishonen attitude. Bishzilla not party this dispute! Bishonen reply here sum up Bishonen attitude in fact, explain greatness of Bishzilla. Anynobody ignore Bishonen explanation, post Bishzilla statement yet more prominently, ugly big quotation box. [12]. Anynobody very stubborn user. bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can honestly, and without hostility, say I feel the exact same way about you. Anynobody 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Article probation

1) All Scientology related articles are placed on Article probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Very strongly endorse. One of the reasons I requested this case was because only ArbCom can implement this remedy. Probation has helped Waldorf education/ Anthroposophy, which has some parallels to this situation. ArbCom dealt with Scientology before to some extent at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. This is one of the topics where entrenched real world animosities periodically erupt onsite. Durova ^Charge! 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This is similar to an upcoming propsal to modify the WP:DR process to include 'article supervision' for contentious articles where AGF is not assumed and a very short leash is maintained on civility and reliable sources, etc. The goal is to make it untenable for POV editors to establish or maintain a foothold. Though the details still need quite a bit of tuning before it is presented. Peace. Lsi john 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Very strongly endorse. The moment any changes are made on any Scientology article, some squad shows up and reverts it, specifically RookZERO and friends, to maintain the status quo of anti-Scientology POVs and - I confess - myself if some more anti-Scientology POV is tried to be injected. I have no fun doing this. It is a waste of time, highly annoying and makes Wikipedia look like a joke. So I want these articles watched closely with some briefed Admin jumping in fast. Misou 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

We Agree! *Faints* Much easier and more effective than banning everybody. Jehochman ^Talk 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed, the entire topic is pretty heated, so it would probably attract trolls and vandals rather easily, plus it'll keep the POV violations (from both sides) down hopefully. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:COIN should be better utilized

2) On the Conflict of Interest board administrators unrelated to the issue should warn WP:COI affected editors brought there, and explain why. If a neutral party advises someone they have a WP:COI it may mean more to the editor in question than if their "opponent" points it out. On the flip side, the same admins should also explain why situations are not WP:COI as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The people one is arguing with are the least likely to be believed by a COI editor. Anynobody 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Things already work this way. If you are in a dispute with another editor, and suspect COI, file a report at WP:COIN and somebody else will investigate. Non-admins can also help because sysop tools aren't needed to investigate a case or issue a warning. Often a warning message is issued to the COI editor (such as {{ uw-coi}} which I created). That makes editors aware of WP:COI, and most of the time it ends there. However, the remaining cases often become difficult and need administrator intervention. We need more volunteers because COIN is persistently understaffed. Jehochman ^Talk 03:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Object. Jehochman expresses the matter well. If someone wishes to present evidence on this topic I'll address it at the evidence page, but these proposals are getting out of hand. For the remainder of this case my shorthand objection will be cart before horse. Durova ^Charge! 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

COI cases opened on WP:COIN should stay at WP:COIN. WP:CSN should be closed or defined in much more rigid detail. Peace. Lsi john 13:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Mutual pestering ban between Anynobody and Justanother

3) Anynobody and Justanother are enjoined from all kinds of pestering of each other, and from referring to each other on Wikipedia, by name or by hint, other than for the direct purpose of discussing article editing. WP:AN3RR is excepted. This remedy deliberately does not try to formalize all relevant situations, but extends a strong caution against attempts to game or wikilawyer the spirit of it. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

I like this. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Would someone care to propose a finding of fact to back this up? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh... well, I thought I had. This one. It's an asymmetric finding of fact — it's not about mutual pestering, but about Anynobody pestering Justanother — because that IMO is what my evidence shows. Anynobody hasn't addressed this claim of asymmetry anywhere, that I can see, or accused Justanother of any pestering. (Anynobody's responses are generally about me and how unfair I am, not about Justanother.) But compare my argument below that the remedy ought nevertheless to be symmetrical and mutual. And Justanother has supported it. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by parties:

Support. -- Justanother 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I support this proposition but honestly haven't tried to pester anyone, could you please provide some examples of when I have? Anynobody 07:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

By that I mean actual diffs of me trolling or pestering. Anynobody 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying you've necessarily "tried" to, I'm talking about the frustration that your actions actually cause. A simple illustrative example would be your asking me here to "please provide some examples," after I've written a whole evidence section devoted to giving such examples. Please see WP:TROLL, which describes the asking of "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers" as a pestering technique. WP:TROLL also points out that the person asking the questions doesn't have to be deliberately trolling: "sometimes what's obvious to one person is obscure to another." This remedy is designed to help you avoid the appearance of trolling Justanother. It's not about your intentions. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC). reply

If Justanother supports the proposal and Anynobody has no desire to pester, then this amounts to essential agreement. What Anynobody needs is a mentor who can explain the difference between normal and problematic behavior. Seeking such a person is Any's responsibility. Durova ^Charge! 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

As I've said before, I do not want to pester anyone. The problem is what everyone considers pestering may be different. Bishonen points to threads I started on WP:ANI as an example, I think, but frankly I don't see how asking for the opinion of admins who aren't involved with the situation is pestering Justanother. Further if it is pestering to do that, then either she missed or ignored the times Justanother has done it to not just myself but many editors.

12 March, Me 16 March, Smee 18 March, Smee same thread, new accusation

29 March, Smee new thread 30 March, Me 13 April, Farenheit 451

8 May, Fubar Obfusco 11 May, Me 13 June, Smee

Here is what I would consider to be needless pestering: Misou reposting a warning to him from another editor on RookZEROs talk page. I have never done anything close to this, so it's difficult to support what Bishonen calls pestering. Anynobody 11:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Ignoring your out-of-context example of the actions of a different editor, I just want to say that it is exactly because you will not own up to your behavior with me that 3rd parties are proposing this ban. I still support this "pestering ban" and would like to see it implemented in the final decision. -- Justanother 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you could cite an example of my pestering you'd wish to discuss here as an example? Anynobody 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that the pestering has been adequately demonstrated by Bishonen already and it is indicative of your approach that you, rather than simply acknowledge and move on, are asking me to repeat her effort. -- Justanother 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You can't pick one of her examples you feel is especially representative of pestering? As I said, I don't think her examples are pestering, especially when compared to the example I cited re: Misou. Anynobody 01:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Rather than that, let me simply say that all these good people are asking is that, once this arb closes, you become VERY disinterested in me and I become VERY disinterested in you. I can manage that without any formal "remedy". Just my promise that I will. Can you do the same? Will you? -- Justanother 01:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually I'd prefer to resolve any differences rather than have to worry about "staying away" from articles either one of us wants to edit that the other happens to already be editing. The stay away from each other concept of conflict resolution is the kind of thing parents/teachers impose on children who can't be reasoned with and doesn't really solve anything. This is because it is meant to restore quiet, and ignores resolution of the dispute to achieve it. Anynobody 04:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I asked you time and again to bring a 3rd party in to resolve your imagined "differences". You refused time and again and instead tried every means you could think of to do other than simply "resolve any differences" but instead to cast me in a bad light. The time for "resolving differences" is over. Just leave me alone and I will do the same for you. I will not discuss this further with you. This solution is being proposed by 3rd parties because, otherwise, you just can't seem to let go. I will not discuss this further. Please let go and leave me alone. I have no interest in further unending "dialoque" with you that goes nowhere and simply requires repeating myself over and over and over and over and over. Support pestering ban. The end, please. -- Justanother 04:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You did ask several times to involve a WP:3O, and as I said several times I'm not the only one who has had difficulty dealing with you; (Smee, Orsini, Fubar Obfusco, Fahrenheit 451, Antaneus Feldspar, Tilman, etc...) and since WP:3O is for disputes between two editors I suggested the WP:RFC/U since there are more than two editors involved. I theorize your refusal to discuss specifics about any evidence stems from the fact that you've done much more of the same type of activity to several editors (for nine examples, the ANI posts I cited above) and to actually say I've been abusing processes and such would be admitting 1)The you do it too and more often and 2) You were doing it first. If, on the other hand, you just say "yeah he's pestering me...support" without giving specifics it's easier to avoid having to deal with that fact or your own words. Just consider the that the reason I ...will not own up to your behavior with... you is that you haven't cited anything for me to own up to. Anynobody 06:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

For the sake of others, let me relate a bit of background. All those editors that Anynobody named are extreme anti-Scientologists and some of them make/made a habit of attacking Scientologists that bother trying to correct the bias or otherwise improve the Scientology-series articles. As an example, Fahrenheit451 routinely harasses Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike that he disagrees with. He is currently harassing Misou, a Scientologist, and Wikipediatrix, a non-Scientologist and not a supporter of Scientology but an editor that does not toe the anti-Scientology "party line" (there Wikipediatrix, did I get it right this time, see here for explanation). 1 2. He is also over at the Identics AfD trying to marginalize every vote by anyone that he claims "has a pro-cofs POV". Get a load of this:

This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job and Justanother is a member of the Church of Scientology who, along with his cohorts, are following the human rights violating dogma of Fair Game (Scientology). The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated. There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them because the cofs dogma demands that they must not.-- Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just a quick survey of the recent activity of just one of those named editors. Historically and when I arrived here one year ago it was much much worse, IMO. The point is that I arrived here as someone that wanted to improve the project and contribute based on my 30-year involvement with Scientology and I was attacked by anti-Scientologists committed to defending the bias in the articles. Bias and violations of Wikipedia policies on NPOV, OR, and RS. They had succeeded in either running off or banning every Scientologist that had ever previously tried to address those issues. I stood my ground against them and, IMO, showed the community that the real extremists were the anti-Scientologists, not the Scientologists that try to edit here. Or maybe I did not, it does not really matter. What this is about is clarification. In the process of standing up to these extremists, I allowed myself to get quite sharp and sarcastic with them for a time. It was during that period that Anynobody showed up on the scene. I was kind to him at first but turned sharp when he tried to bring my spiritual beliefs (i.e. "my religion) in as the "motive" for my actions in putting up Barbara Schwarz for Afd and further tried to bring my beliefs in as the "reason" I did not see some small bit of Wiki policy exactly as he did. When he did his "thing" of not letting it go, I got angry with him and basically told him to back the fuck off. My bad. This was a period when I was letting myself go a bit too much. I recanted of that behavior and posted an apology to the community at large on my user page for one month ( up down). I did not apologize to those extremists that my sarcasm was directed to as I felt that their behavior was much much more egregious and harmful to the project. It all boils down to 1) I saw the error of my ways; 2) I recanted and apologized. Since 30 March 2007, I have most assuredly calmed my tongue and, the couple times I slipped, I quickly apologized. End of story. The "pestering" comes in when Anynobody can't seem to accept that I do not have a COI and my beliefs do not bar me from editing Scientology articles. And since he wants to make a "case" against me he tends to rehash months-old incidents of my being rude or sarcastic to extreme anti-Scientology editors. Time to stop now. Please. -- Justanother 15:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Your post would have been most appropriate for the RFC/U, commenting editors could have taken your statement into account when giving their opinions.

But I'm asking you for an example of my pestering as you see it. What it really boils down to here is when and how have I made you feel pestered? (The point I was making with your ANI posts is that if my two or three have pestered you then you've got some behavior to own up on too. All I'm asking for is your perspective, when and how did I pester you? Anynobody 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Anynobody, it's not about the number, but the nature, of your ANI complaints. I've noticed you prefer to ignore my evidence in these relentless workshop interrogations of yours, but please read my examples and click on my links to uninvolved admins' comments in my evidence section already. Ceaseless or repetitious questioning and argumentation from a position of wilfull ignorance is not dispute resolution, it is pestering. Do you really want to be acting this way at the very moment the arbitrators are voting about your behavior on the Proposed Decision page? [13] [14] [15] Bishonen | talk 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Bishonen is it really so unreasonable to ask him when he thought the line was crossed? I have not ignored your evidence, I have simply been biting my tounge because I thought this was about COFS so to keep on subject I'd try to minimize dealing with the issue between Justanother, you, and myself. Evidently that is not the case so I will have to be more descriptive in my evidence. Anynobody 09:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Compare this proposed principle. As my evidence and this proposed finding of fact make clear, I consider Anynobody to be the driving force in the conflict, but I still don't see any practical reason for making the remedy asymmetric. Obviously, if Anynobody is to be expected to leave Justanother alone, Justanother needs to leave him alone, too. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Completely agree, I was thinking of putting up something like this, but Bishonen worded it much better. Kwsn ^(Ni!) 04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I find this proposal objectionable as some cofs directed editors engage in a intentional pattern of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA violations on Wikipedia. If one gets banned, then another one from the corporation can be recruited to take the place of the banned identity. The cofs-directed editors have much less to lose than do independent editors. I refer to the statements that I made on the Evidence page.-- Fahrenheit451 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

And I refer to my statements on the Evidence page, and to the other other links I lay out a few lines above. Did you click on them? Is this the proposal you meant to be commenting on? What does it have to do with banning or recruiting editors? What are you talking about? Bishonen | talk 08:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Alternative to the mutual pestering ban:

Anynobody enjoined from contacting or referring to Justanother

3:1) Anynobody is enjoined from contacting or referring to Justanother, by name or by hint, other than for the direct purpose of discussing article editing. WP:AN3RR is excepted. This remedy deliberately does not try to formalize all relevant situations, but extends a strong caution against attempts to game or wikilawyer the spirit of it. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See my evidence for Anynobody's long-time preoccupation with Justanother, this proposed principle, and this proposed finding of fact. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Justanother enjoined from contacting or referring to Anynobody

3:2) Justanother is enjoined from contacting or referrring to Anynobody, by name or by hint, other than for the direct purpose of discussing article editing. WP:AN3RR is excepted. This remedy does not imply criticism of Justanother's actions, but is intended to ensure a balanced situation together with 3:1 above. If Anynobody is to be expected to leave Justanother alone, Justanother obviously needs to leave him alone, too. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. It strikes me that the mutual pestering ban above is unfair to Justanother, as it enshrines cautions to him against things nobody has accused him of doing, like pestering and wikilawyering. The Justanother remedy should state explicitly that it doesn't imply he has done stuff like that to Anynobody (unless of course fresh evidence arrives suggesting that he has). To avoid unnecessarily embarrassing Anynobody, I've removed the mention of "pestering" from 3:1 also; "contacting or referring to" should ensure the same result, I reckon. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Editors on Scientology articles have to define their goals and intention on the talk page

4) Most editors on the Scientology articles are regular contributors. Time and observation usually shows that they are pushing anti-Scientology or pro-Scientology POVs, seemingly neutral contributions are seldom and usually stirred up by recent off-wiki campaigns ( Scientology In Australia for example).

Scientologists who openly state that they are members of the Church of Scientology are automatically disadvantaged as this honesty costs them "credibility" in the anti-Scientology atmosphere which has been permitted to build up on Wikipedia.

Anti-Scientology editors are not required to state what their intention is though some turned out so far as clearly parties to an anti-Scientology or anti-Church of Scientology movement which runs an off-wiki agenda against the Church of Scientology and uses Wikipedia as a "fighting ground", e.g. to influence Google search results and to stir up hatred against Scientologists (I guess if I put names here I get toasted for incivility etc, so ask me if you need them).

So I propose to only permit editors in Scientology-articles who have clearly stated what their intent and goal for the article is and who gave an official statement whether they support administratively, financially or as personal pro-/anti-Scientology movements or endeavors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No way. This is a presumption of conflict of interest for all editors. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 06:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Misou 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

This finding seems to be based on innuendo rather than evidence. If there is evidence that certain editors have an anti-Scientology POV, for example, or that Wikipedia has an anti-Scientology atmosphere, then it should be presented and discussed. Evidence, by definition, must be seen - and this arbitration is the best place to see it.

I'm also concerned about how this proposal meshes with WP:AGF. It seems to be stuck halfway between two states - saying that on the one hand we don't trust any editor to edit without concealing their COI, but on the other hand, if they say they don't have one, it's okay. This is like installing a metal detector in the entrance to a school, then switching it off, and having an old guy standing next to it asking each student, "do you have any concealed weapons?" as they pass through. Sheffield Steel ^talkers _stalkers 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blocks for pestering

1) Any infringement by Anynobody or Justanother of the Mutual Pestering Ban as perceived by any admin is subject to a short block without warning for the first offense and then escalating blocks, to be logged at bla bla—I'm sure the arbcom, in case they're with me this far, will specify some suitable and usual enforcement and logging arrangement. Note, however, that in view of my evidence for the advice Anynobody has already received, and been impervious to, I consider it essential that the proposed remedy is enforced, and not simply left to the good will of the parties. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. -- Justanother 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse per above, since both parties appear to agree in principle. Durova ^Charge! 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

As with the above, I'd like to know what is considered "pestering"? Does that mean we should not edit the same articles, or something else. Or is this in regards to just our User talk pages? Anynobody 06:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And as I write above, the responsibility for obtaining a mentor to explain the distinction between normal and abnormal behavior rests with you. Durova ^Charge! 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I must disagree with that as a solution for this question, since all I'm asking for is clarification from the editor making the proposal. Anynobody 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Bishonen's proposal is perfectly clear to me. If you can't understand it, please click the link, re-read the proposal, and check the referenced pages. The specifics are abundantly clear if you choose to study them. Jehochman ^Talk 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Anynobody, let me walk you through an example of what I mean. This proposed enforcement here contains a link to the proposed Mutual Pestering Ban in the "Proposed remedies" section above. Please go there and look at it. It explicitly allows for contact between the two of you "for the direct purpose of discussing article editing." Thereby, it explicitly refers to the possibility that you may be editing the same article, and refers to this situation as proper and normal. Therefore, for you to ask me here if the remedy means you two should not edit the same article, is an example of pestering me

• "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers... If they continue asking the question even after you've clearly answered it, or begin complaining that you won't help them, there's a chance of them being trolls... in extreme cases, this can be a method of trolling, and it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions." [16]

In other words, your question itself illustrates my point that it's vital that the proposed remedy is enforced and not simply left to the good will of the parties. Specifically that it's not left to your good will. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC). reply

Bishonen, there is a difference between trying to get an answer and trying to harass someone with questions. For example I asked Justanother when he felt I was pestering him above. I asked because if he gives an example of what bothers him I can try to avoid doing that in the future. He simply says that he is feeling pestered and that is that, which doesn't help me avoid doing it again in the future. Why is it pestering to keep the subject focused on the question asked? (To me the obvious answer is that keeping a conversation on point is simply basic conversation.)

In all fairness how can someone avoid repeating a mistake if nobody tells them what the mistake is? I asked you several times what kind of effort you would like to have seen during the RfC issue to satisfy an attempt to solve the problem outside the RfC environment. I have no idea what you consider a good faith effort, so it's not like I'm asking a question with an obvious answer.

Maybe a different approach would help; Your proposal indicates Justanother has also pestered me.

No it doesn't! Please do what Jehochman says above: "If you can't understand it, please click the link, re-read the proposal, and check the referenced pages." Bishonen | talk 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Could you cite an example of this,

Afraid not. And there will altogether be no further interminable repetitions of examples from me. It's too frustrating, it makes my hair fall out, I'd sooner go sit in an antheap. Read what I've already written to you all over this page, what Justanother has already written, what Durova has already written. I'm afraid that's the only recommendation I have left. I've warned you again and again that you need to address what I say in my evidence -- to speak to my claim that you've been harassing Justanother. To offer counter-evidence or something. You've steadily ignored this counsel, and ... and you thought it would show maturity to do that? I don't know what to say to you. As anybody who's read this workshop knows, it's not true that you've kept it focused on COFS; you've commented on my evidence all right, but only in the sense of attacking me for offering it ( random example). That's not the same thing as addressing what I say. Please excuse the interlined answers, it seemed important to reply to specific sentences of yours. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC). reply

I'm wondering if it's possible I didn't notice what you or others would call pestering as pestering since I operate on the principle of treating people the way I'd like to be treated. Therefore something that doesn't bother me could bother more sensitive people than myself without my realizing it. Anynobody 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Arrgghhhh. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC). reply

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence presented by Anynobody

COFS is an example of how WP:COI leads to other trouble

Summary by jpgordon: You're going to have to do a lot better than this if you want to prove your point through evidence. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The continued argumentation here by Justanother is an example of why this section is rarely used. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Are the explanations more in the area of what would be expected? Anynobody 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've reduced the amount of new evidence I'm adding until I'm 100% clear on the analysis so far. Anynobody 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Summary by Justanother: Other than a few minor quibbles that can be chalked up to being new, the diffs provided by Anynobody are, IMO, consistent with a serious and good-faith editor. -- Justanother 12:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

COFS on WP:OR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems to me that COFS is arguably correct here. The article is synthesizing a result from pure data in this paragraph. We generally discourage that. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No single piece of evidence can indicate good faith. Bad faith, perhaps. I have no idea what "change happened at the source level" means. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

The change happened at the source level, so when describing the RTC (and keeping the information reasonably current) it's my understanding that we should mention the change but not speculate about why (The change is fact, any speculation would be WP:OR). That's exactly what the paragraph does, and the reference it cites is actually two references in one: Rathbun and other guy compared to today, neither mentioned. Anynobody 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agree with jpgordon. COFS is raising a valid question of whether the bit is OR. He simply inserts an {{OR}} tag, certainly a reasonable edit. This evidence indicates that COFS is a good-faith editor of the project. -- Justanother 12:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It means that the source changed it's website. We (Wikipedia) didn't have anything to do with the change, one day the website listed the two individuals, the next it didn't.) Anynobody 07:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

What does an occurence of misunderstanding WP:OR have to do with good faith? Anynobody 07:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

AN, this is how you started with me, with the claim that I misunderstood some policy (in my case, how to present pseudo-biographical "material" in Barbara Schwarz) and that somehow my religion was tied into my alleged misunderstanding of the WP:POLICY. Then you refuse my repeated offers that we just bring in a 3rd party to settle your dispute. So what I now see here is disturbing. Now you are claim that COFS misunderstands WP:OR. And perhaps his "COI" or "strong feelings" tie into that "misunderstanding"? I hope this does not indicate that, if you are banned from being "interested" in me, that you might continue that same "interest" with another editor as target. Perhaps we should generalize the remedy a bit? -- Justanother 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This is actually quite different than the misunderstanding about whether WP:BLP applies to the editing of an entire article about a living person or just section of it, as well as the general situation which surrounded it. Here COFS is stating her belief that it is WP:OR for us (Wikipedia) to update the information to reflect the cited source. Nobody says the Church of Scientology has to give reasons for removing executives from their websites but since Wikipedia tries to be as transparent as possible it seems we'd want to explain why our information changed. Anynobody 06:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

COFS falsely accuses Tilman of vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, COFS is accusing an anonymous editor of vandalism; it's Tilman's version being restored. The anonymous editor inserted, In other words scientology is a cult!, which is at best graffiti and arguably vandalism. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

That was a mistake, I actually had meant to cite this diff. Anynobody 05:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes. Another example of careless or uninformed use of a script tool, in this case Twinkle. I have mentioned in the past, before COFS arrived I believe, that one should reserve the automated tools for simple vandalism or other trivial cases and manually revert the good-faith edits of others in a content dispute. Of course, reverting is NOT the way to solve a content dispute but that is not what we are discussing right here and I daresay that COFS is not the first editor in these dust-ups to hit the "revert key". The evidence shows that COFS was careless or uninformed in the use of a script. -- Justanother 12:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

COFS on POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yeah, "paid for his work" is kinda peculiar. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Yeah, and true too. [17] Misou 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

These one-liners like that edit summary or Misou's remark may be easy to read but do little to make esoteric material accessible to a broader audience. Analysis - Content dispute. BFD. IMO, the CoS is a "transnational corporation". So is the Catholic Church. So is almost every religion, I will wager. This is similar to the copyright issue, it is simply a factor in our modern society that most groups organize themselves as corporations, non-profit in the case of the CoS. BFD. Kent makes that somehow nefarious and COFS felt that one paid POV-pusher's opinion does not belong in the lead. I agree. Content dispute. Evidence shows good faith on the part of COFS. -- Justanother 12:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Don't know where AGF or NPOV fits into this evidence at all; at most, it's a refutation of an accusation of stalking, made with an automated tool that stuck the "good faith" language in there. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

History for Cult Awareness Network article and COFS first edit. Hours before there was a discussion which may have in fact led to the wikistalking allegations, [18]. Naturally one wonders what the warning was refering to; [19]. The script may have added the WP:AGF point, but the tone of the summary indicated to me a complete lack of good faith.

m (Reverted good faith edits by Tilman; "wikistalking"? Rather explain this NPOV violation, please. . using TW)

Anynobody 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Better use of script by COFS. Questions Tilman's bad faith accusation of "wikistalking" and invites Tilman to actually address the issue. Appropriate action by COFS. Possible inappropriate action by Tilman in previous edit to accuse COFS of wikistalking. -- Justanother 12:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

And are you taking it in the context of the surrounding edits? Or cherry picking one edit comment and applying the same bad-faith that you're accusing COFS of? Peace. Lsi john 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

COFS on WP:3RR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure what the point is here, other than an exaggeration in an edit summary. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

History - Please note the number of COI editors and their frequency of editing.

This paragraph, which has references is trying to be removed by the COI editors. Here Su-Jada removes it. It was returned and then removed by COFS whose edit summary was Undid revision 139694507. This is robotical and probably 12RR on your part by now with all admins sleeping.. If one looks at the history for the page, 12RR doesn't even come close to describing the situation and implies gross wrong doing on the part of the other editor. Anynobody 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Inappropriate exaggeration by COFS. RookZERO ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in a "revert-warrior" (see block log, the last one was for 3RR too but I think the admin made an error in the summary) and is exactly the sort of editor that makes life miserable in the Scientology articles. He should probably be topic-banned at best. It is of note that Jehochman's "test edit" in the Scientology article was quickly reverted by RookZERO. Was COFS exasperated? IDK. Certainly no biggie here. -- Justanother 12:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

COFS on "attack the attacker" policy of the CoS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

COFS marks one section as original research, which looks kinda bogus; COFS also puts a {{ fact}} tag on an unsourced statement Many of Scientology's critics have also reported they were subject to threats and harassment in their private life. Certainly that latter needs sources, even if it happens to be absolutely true; it's those absolutely true things that should be the easiest to find sources for, one would think. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I had assumed the diffs would be analyzed more than they were, so I apologize if they seem snide. They were designed to let the information available speak for itself, and minimize any commentary by me.

References before fact tag, the assertion could've been sourced using one of the references either on the page itself or one of the other Scientology articles. As one who edits several CoS topics COFS should have known this but instead the edit summary cites other, less relevant, concerns. Anynobody 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Content issue. Possibly complex and beyond the scope of this arbitration. COFS asks for a cite where a cite should be provided. Good-faith action on the part of COFS. COFS tags a complex issue of whether stating unequivocally and without specific secondary source (i.e. using primary materials only) that current actions or attitudes of the Church in relation to critics relates to a 40-year old policy primarily, as I recall it, geared toward government investigators, not private critics. Placing the OR tag simply opens the conversation and indicates good-faith on the part of COFS. Actually it looks like OR to me too unless it can be supported by secondary sources. So while deciding the "truth" of that content issue may be beyond our scope here, the OR nature of the bit is pretty clear. -- Justanother 12:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence presented by Lsi john ( talk · contribs · logs)

Are editors expected to strictly abide by requests to not post on other editors talk pages? I understand criticism and warnings would not be appropriate to post on the talk page of an editor who requested no further contact, however eliminating all possible contact seems counterproductive in resolving issues between editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, it's kinda good sense to abide by such requests, since refusing them invariably leads to making people more annoyed at you than they already are, and what's the benefit of that? I think it's implicit in WP:CIV -- it's incivil to be in the face of someone who as specifically asked you to leave them be. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

For example, in this case I fully understood Bishonen asked me not to post on her talk page any more. In the evidence she presented I spotted what could have been the cause of basic misunderstanding between us. As it turned out nothing was solved, but in another situation I'd certainly appreciate any efforts made by editors I've had disagreements with to resolve them. Anynobody 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That seems childish when good faith efforts are being made to actually resolve the conflict as opposed to just dropping in to provide commentary or criticism which as I said I understand would be very uncivilized.

Essentially then resolving editor/editor conflicts is not a priority on Wikipedia? If things stay the way they are Bishonen and I wouldn't be able to work together even on articles unrelated to the dispute. Very well, per jpgordon I will never post to Bishonen's page again (I'm assuming that it's a two way street and she'll leave me alone too?) Anynobody 07:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Bishonen's evidence and arbcom's decision re Anynobody

It may be too late but I'm going to go through Bishonen's evidence and give my side of things. I wanted to before but thought it would show maturity if I tried to keep things as focused on COFS since that is the title of this case. As I said perhaps it's too late to affect the outcome but hopefully someone will be good enough to point out where I was incorrect in my thoughts. I do not have time this evening to be as thourough as I'd like but I'll just start out with why I asked Bishonen so many times to explain how a WP:RFC/U which was approved in three hours can later be deleted for not being approved. As I understand it the RFC/U process works like this:

In this case NE2 has been approved and as such satisfied the 48 hour rule. Peter morrell has not yet satisfied the rule. If it was still in that section on 22 July at 09:16 it would be eligible for deletion.

Her evidence says Demonstration that Daniel's move of the RfC from "candidate" to "approved" was purely procedural is here. I took what Daniel said to mean the candidate looked worthy to him and he approved it, per procedure. I must emphasize I'm not trying to take shots at Bishonen, especially in front of the arbcom, but she is saying that all candidate pages get moved to the approved section to await approval as standard procedure. That is pretty illogical, why have a candidate section at all then if all candidates get moved to a different section to be decided on? To sum up, I probably should have been more vocal about the fact that her answers weren't making sense to me while asking my questions so she'd understand I wasn't trying to troll her with stupid questions, though how to write "that doesn't make sense to me" in the non-offensive tone of voice I mean it to be said in is difficult.

Is this really the procedure? And if it isn't would it have been considered a WP:PA to say her answer made no sense? Anynobody 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Bishonen has said I've abused processes such as WP:RFA and WP:ER, she is flat out wrong:
RFA
My RFA as set up 28 March No mention of Justanother or RfC. I didn't bring it up, it was asked as a question Bishonen and Justanother seem to think I was trying to make my RFA about them when in actuality it hadn't even occured to me to mention it. If I accept her logic, I should have refused to answer the other editors question. Is there a nice way to phrase an answer like that? ("Sorry I can't answer that question, I'd be involving other editors...")
ER
my editor review: I'm hoping for someone to take time and explain to me if i have been wrong in how I apply/perceive rules here in an ongoing disagreement with Justanother...At this point I'm wondering if the system doesn't work, or if I've been screwing up. Thank you for your time. I have seriously been more than amenable to the prospect that I have been wrong, all I ask is for someone to explain how/where and what I should have done. I don't think Bishonen, Justanother, or frankly anyone else read what I typed. Since dealing with other editors is part of being an editor, I just wanted someone neutral to give me some feedback. Anynobody 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Bishonens evidence that I disregarded her and set up the RFC in bad faith

Bishonen:...there must be a co-signer of the RFC, somebody who has attempted (independently of Anynobody)... There was, Smee, and I had assumed Bishonen would have checked for previous contacts between Justanother and Smee before saying so. If she had then their contacts since October 2006 would have shown that Smee made a serious effort to come to an understanding with Justanother. 21 Oct 2006 & 25 Jan 2007

I proposed the RfC suggestion to Smee on March 6 formatted as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother on her talk page but neither of us actually put it up as a candidate. I had included my name in the proposed title since I have always been open to the possibility of being wrong.

On March 7, before the RfC was submitted on the 8th, here is what she said: Bishonen: Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. Changing the page into a userpage until it's ready is the way to go IMO, especially because then there'll be time to deal properly with the "dispute resolution" thing. I knew that dispute resolution had been tried, but since the RfC wasn't posted until the following day I'm not sure why Bishonen thought Smee wasn't taking her advice since it hadn't been posted. Since I knew DR had been tried Bishonens suggestion to userfy the RFC didn't make any sense so I asked about what she meant to accomplish by userfying the page. No, not "once it gets a few comments". It won't get comments while it's in your userspace, that's the whole point. It won't start until it's moved back to a live RFC, and, on my reading of the always-vexed RFC rules, you would be able to restart the clock for those 48 hours when it was moved back. This is important to my point because she says that the 48 hour clock is reset once the page is removed and then added again. Indicating she thought we had already submitted the RfC on the 7th, which is not what happened, The one and only time the RfC was posted to the RFC/U board was on March 8th after I had refined it taking into account the advice Bishonen gave which did make sense (Title should be Justanother, making proposals on the project page and not RfC talk.)

In the end these are the reasons I could gleen from Bishonens deletion of the RfC; 1. Nobody else had tried resolving the issue with Justanother to Bishonen's satisfaction, just what that would have been is unknown. 2. It was on the RFC/U page longer than 48 hours in the approved section without being approved. Both of these facts left me wondering if there was another reason she had deleted the RfC since neither of these make any sense. This is when I formed the opinion her actions were either based on being biased in favor of Justanother OR didn't like having her point that dispute resolution hadn't been done wasn't shared by the admin who approved it. I'm not accusing her of intentionally sabotaging the RfC in bad faith, I'm accusing her of being human and unaware of the entire situation. Anynobody 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Bishonen knew deleting the RfC could look improper

Bishonen knew that as an involved admin it could be seen as improper for her to delete the RFC. So she tried to get an admin who wasn't involved to delete it: (→Admin help needed on User RfC please - Nobody? OK, I'll just delete it myself.) Again, I'm not saying she sabotaged it on purpose, but I am saying that her feelings look like they got the better of her since she was rational enough to know it would be best if someone else deleted it, yet emotional enough to follow through when it became apparent no one else would. Anynobody 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Bishonen and Justanother formed a rapport before the RfC issue

Justanother established a rapport with Bishonen, I'm not saying it was a friendship right off the bat but it looks to me like Bishonen eventually came to look favorably on him. Feb 23 - Part 2 - Part 3 -
Feb 24 Bishzilla - Part 2 -
Feb 25 Bishonen - Part 2 -
Feb 28 - Part 2 -
Justanother and his requests to Bishonen: Around March 5th Justanother began to rely on using Bishonen as a kind of enforcer.
March 5 Hi. My oppose seemed to have gotten lost in the move - would you mind fixing that? Thanks. - Cool, I see now. Thanks - March 7 Please see User_talk:Jossi#Your_offer and User talk:MrDarcy#PA by User:Johnpedia for a different perspective on Anynobody, i.e. the view from the trenches. Thanks.
Note: Possibly the perspective he was referring to but if not then it would be this one.
- Smee is back and true to form. - Oh MY GAWD. What a drama queen! See also= May 11 edit on similar comfort issue -
March 8 (Clue-o-gram needed) -
March 9 (Feel strange . . . head . . . swimming . . . clothes . . . stretching) - (A clue, a clue, my kingdom for a clue.) -
March 10 (Thanks . . . a lot) After Bishonen deleted the RfC.

Please understand, when I said Bishonen might have been biased, all of this had already happened. I realize that Bishonen and her Bishzilla are well liked and popular here, and I'm not saying that has to change. I've only been saying that given her previous interactions with Justanother she would not be a neutral enough party to delete the RfC, either because of her rapport with Justanother or because she was trying to guide Smee and I away from the RfC she felt would not pass...but did anyway. Anynobody 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Bishonen has a grudge against me, yet proposes I forget any I might have

Given that she insists I was turning my RfA into a forum about Justanother, while leaving out the fact that I didn't bring it up, she either intentionally left it out or dislikes me enough to believe her assumption to be true. As I have shown, I only answered a question that was posed to me by giving my opinion.
Consider her refusal to discuss the situation below when I had already admitted a mistake: Bishonen posts a troll warning on my talk page after I misunderstood an edit I thought was Justanothers - I had made a mistake and apologized for it, I took the opportunity to also try to resolve the dispute between us. April 9 She didn't reply.

I happened to notice Bishonen blocked an editor I didn't know without warning, who happened to be referring to policies which weren't. Since I wasn't sure if he/she knew they could dispute the block (based on the misidentification of policies) and I strongly feel blocks should be given after warnings, unless extreme circumstances justify it. This wasn't extreme:
May 28 Perhaps you'd like to share your opinion on WP:ANI,... [20] Anynobody 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Bishonen has suggested solutions to behavior I don't show

May 14 Bishonens proposal Even though she acknowledges Lsi john and myself haven't been excessively posting to ANI she suggests we not post there anymore. She also asks that I not post on eiter of their pages, period whether there is reason or not. Ignoring the fact that I haven't been posting their either. When I explain that I'm already more or less abiding by the proposal it doesn't make sense to accept it. Especially since she couldn't point to an instance where I had done anything to justify her suggestion. My response She seems to have forgotten that courtesy dictates notification of an editor who you are going to mention on a AN board (not just ANI) so if I found myself having an issue to address re: Justanother, to abide by her suggestion I'd have to not give him notice.

Despite my polite explanation, she brought up a third point: Suggesting i not talk with Smee (or others I guess) about Justanother and Lsi john since they watch our talk pages. Since I really don't care what they say about me, and as shown by Durovas evidence they would have tried to find a way around it anyway, I felt the suggestion was also not a solution either. She chose to get angry or dejceted: Very well. I won't waste my breath appealing to you, I've been there. I simply note that you won't play. Anynobody 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

If I was trying to use Wikiprocesses against Justanother to pester him, would I voluntarily close a thread on WP:COIN about him?

now any action might be perceived as punishment so I nominate this entry be archived. Anynobody 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm also not saying I'm perfect

But I learn if mistakes are explained in a logical way, for example with the benefit of hindsight my posts to WP:ANI would have been more appropriate at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. When it dawned on me, I did something about it to help ensure others don't make the same mistake since I also noticed I wasn't the only one doing it: Suggestion for the AN/I board.

I've always thought the feedback options on Wikipedia were a great idea, WP:RFC and WP:RFC/U as well as WP:ER, WP:RFA, etc. (I don't mean to trivialize the list by adding an etc. but there are quite a few of them.) They allow, in theory, a person to get honest feedback from neutral people (neutral from friend and opponent) I would never intentionally misuse them, but my success with them hasn't been complete. Bishonen's evidence and posts appear to regard me as a master troll here to undermine the project and harass her and her friends. Since I've been saying she screwed up for a few months I understand why she thinks that, but please look at my contributions, block log, and user page: Anynobody ( talk · contribs · logs) Anyeverybody ( talk · contribs · logs) Then ask yourselves if you are looking at an editor out to cause chaos, or someone to WP:AGF about. Anynobody 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Summary and point by point refutation

Bishonen: 6 March 2007 Smee and eventually also Anynobody ask my help with "formatting" an RfC on Justanother, an editor I had several times admonished for poor behavior.
Response: Also as I said before, they didn't have a friendly relationship from the get go but by the time this situation came up they had gotten past her past admonishments.

Bishonen: 11 March 2007. ANI thread where Anynobody protests about the deletion of his RfC on Justanother. In his interpretation, the RfC had been "approved" by an "uninvolved" admin (User:Daniel.Bryant). Demonstration that Daniel's move of the RfC from "candidate" to "approved" was purely procedural is here. Even Anynobody's co-collector of material for the next RfC on Justanother, Orsini, tells him the deletion was proper,[80][81] but fails to deflect him.
Response: I won't go into all my reasons for her not to have deleted to the RfC, as I said the RfC was approved because an admin moved it from the candidate to approved section and people started commenting. Unless we accept standard procedure that sidesteps logic and the fact that she had solcited an uninvolved admin to delete it before pressing ahead. Orsini is an editor I respect, and given the fact that he didn't delete the RfC I'm not going to ask him to answer questions like why did she ask another admin... etc. because 1) He doesn't know only Bishonen does 2) I assumed he'd understand when all the info came out anyway without me having to explain why the RfC was actually approved to him.

Bishonen: 28 March 2007. Anynobody requests adminship. The nomination appears to be something of a disguised attack page on Justanother, per its contents and this post.
Response: As I pointed out in the above analysis I didn't bring Justanother up, I was asked my opinion and I gave it.

Bishonen:30 March 2007. Justanother creates an ANI thread' about Anynobody's refusal to remove a quote from Justanother (which has the appearance of being deliberately misunderstood.
Response: I honestly don't know if this is as bad as Bishonen makes it sound, as I said on the evidence page the whole conversation was not exactly one which showed Justanother in a good light. I'm curious to know though what she thinks he meant by that quote, if I deliberatly misunderstood it (and the whole conversation evidently).

Bishonen:1 April 2007. Anynobody applies for Wikipedia:Editor review, creating a supposedly-not-about-Justanother Justanother attack page, now deleted.
Response: Coming off of the Rfc issue was when I first got the idea an Editor Review might be a good idea. When one looks at it from my point of view; I helped intiate a RfC which was approved and then deleted. At first Bishonen maintained that not enough of an effort at good faith problem solving had been attempted, but wouldn't say what would have constituted one. Since Daniel approved the RfC, but then Bishonen deleted it I wanted to know if I had messed up submitting the RfC or he did by approving it if what Bishonen said was true. Since I didn't want to hassle Daniel, who was just trying to help out and is really unrelated to this mess, I thought I'd see if someone could point out where I went wrong. (In addition to anything else that needed talking about i was unaware of.)

Bishonen: 18 June 2007. Anynobody initiates an ANI thread, ostensibly to ask a general question about his projected next RfC on Justanother.
Response: I've seen several pages very similar to the one Orsini set up, and it was my understanding that as long as the concerns expressed are actual policy/guideline issues it's not an attack page. Since Justanother was suddenly making a big issue out of it, rather than engage in a needless back and forth with him, I asked ANI.

Bishonen: 13 July 2007. Here is a recent dialogue between Justanother and Anynobody on the latter's talkpage. I'm sorry for the length of that discussion, but it's very illuminating of the practices of both editors, and of their interaction. (Including Justanother's ill-judged intervention in the Anynobody-Anyeverybody "spoofing" issue, see below.) Note where Anynobody returns to his by now ancient original grudge of the deletion of the RfC on Justanother: "requesting the deletion of the RfC was a mistake."
Response: I noticed Bishonen apologized for the length of the thread, I can't help but point out that if this had been anywhere but my talk page I'd of simply moved on. I really do try to answer everyone who posts to my talk page, even bots (or rather anyone who might follow up on them.)

If this is really all the evidence Bishonen could find to prove I have harassed Justanother, then I just have one question for the arbcom. Can I post examples of Justanother's behavior in this "conflict" that Bishonen either missed or ignored? I can probably come up with much more than seven examples if you'd let me provide evidence of how he treats others besides me. Heck his harassment campaign against Smee because she started too many CoS related articles that happened to be picked for WP:DYK has driven her to a long wikibreak. Frankly I think this mess would be better handled elsewhere, like I said about my editor review, I don't try to force issues where they don't belong and since this case is/was about editors identified by checkuser accessing from IPs of the subjects of the articles which they are editing. Which is why I didn't present this evidence sooner, I really thought Bishonen was doing with this to me what she accused me of doing with my ER so it'd be best to not respond as though it was seriously part of the case. Anynobody 10:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe Bishonen has already explained in detail why this is a misreading of the situation. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Newyorkbrad thank you for commenting, you have said that calling Bishonen biased was incorrect (or hostile). I'm hoping you now understand based on these diffs why it isn't unreasonable to have that thought.

Also if you honestly feel she explained the deletion then please explain why she argues on one hand that it wasn't approved so it was ok to delete it, but on the other asks other admins to delete it because she knows it was approved. Either the RfC wasn't actually approved, and she needn't get an uninvolved admin like she says now OR it was approved and she didn't want to give the impression of impropriety by deleting it if someone else would like she said then. Anynobody 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Question for the arbitrators by Justanother

Question for the arbitrators - Can y'all delete articles as a result of an arbitration? I am thinking about Barbara Schwarz. I had reason to look at the talk page history and saw this recent post be a "likely-Barbara":

Nobody would employ her. Anybody googles and find the Wikipedia article and accordingly not employing. This is the only purpose of this article. Wikipedia wants to shame her that she does not get a job and kill herself. Wikipedia editors are so "good". They can't leave this woman alone.

I'm sorry but this article is offensive to me. It exists because ARS regulars hate Schwarz. Were it not for ARS regulars here, she would be, at best, a line in the Notable Usenet personalities and, perhaps, a mention in the FOIA article. Notice how Tilman, an ARS enemy of Schwarz, deleted the talk page post without process in violation of any rational judgement of what might constitute COI. This article is a slap in the face to any sense of fairness or compassion on the part of this project, a gross violation of "Do No Harm". -- Justanother 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

And in further support of my position, just a quick look at the talk page showed a WP:BLP violation against Schwarz by another of her ARS enemies, User:Vivaldi, which I removed here. This talk page would require constant monitoring and the article ain't worth the price of admission as I believe someone once said. -- Justanother 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Essentially, "no". If you want the article removed, WP:AFD is over there. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

That is what I was afraid of. I already did the (4th) AfD. -- Justanother 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Durova got an article deleted on the 14th try, so never give up hope--but don't violate WP:POINT either. Jehochman ^Talk 06:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Question about scope of arbitration

I was hoping an arbitrator would comment on my motion above, but given the amount of time that's passed with no reply I think the proposal is possibly not going to be acted upon while there is still time for me to show proof of all involved. Looking at the checkuser evidence, how should we be treating the accounts which use Scientology or other IPs not used by COFS? If the arbcom wants to see incidents of Su-Jada and Grrrilla, who have not used any of the IPs COFS has, shouldn't they at least be one of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Involved parties? Are CSI LA, Misou, and Makoshack automatically considered involved without having to be listed?

Account	IP 1	IP 2	IP 3	IP 4	IP 5	IP 6
COFS	x	x	-	-	-	-
CSI LA	x	x	-	-	-	-
Misou	x	x	x	x	x	-
Makoshack	x	x	-	-	-	-
Grrrilla	-	-	-	x	x	x
Su-Jada	-	-	-	-	-	x

Anynobody 08:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

We prefer not to make assumptions about editors simply because of their use of open proxies. However, I've started blocking the your-freedom.net ones, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Does anyone else think that the below should be moved to the talk page? I don't know if that exchange is easily followed. Better would be if the involved parties proposed principles, findings of fact, etc. in the appropriate areas above and we discussed those than be all over the map as below. Just my 2 cents. -- Justanother 21:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Only Su_jada has not used the same proxies as COFS. I think the proxy your-freedom.net should be counted as one access. Jpgordon has stated that 2,3,4,5 IP's are your-freedom.net which purpose is to deliver full access to the internet and also help users to stay anonymous. It is hard to belive that 7 5 editors which have the same purpose and edit the same articles do all choose the same proxy provider for uncensored access and/or anonymity. There are 100-1000 providers in the web which provide this kind of service and its unlikely a coinscidence.It might be helpful if one of them makes a statement if they did know each other and recommended http://www.your-freedom.net, which would at least explain the coincident that all of them used your-freedom.net. And it is still hard to assume good faith with su_jada because he/she shared the IP with grrrila which is connected to the other editors. Would it be possible to find out if Misou and COFS first used the CoS IP and after the first usercheck switched to your-freedom.net or it was randomly used? -- Stan _talk 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Stan. Your-Freedom is an SSL/proxy service to protect your wireless connection against sniffing or snooping or howeverthatiscalled. What are you talking about? Misou 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

"help users to stay anonymous", yeah, right. And "Stan En" is the name in your passport? Misou 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, my real name is hidden. However, I do not use a proxy to hide my network address or provider. Promotion by your-freedom.net: "The Your Freedom services makes accessible what is unaccessible to you, and it hides your network address from those who don't need to know." -- Stan _talk 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, interesting feature. Very obviously workable on Wikipedia, right? Man, do you realize that we would not have this useless talk if it were a feature for real? I got this service recommended together with my WLAN card, as an answer how to avoid broadcasting my business mails and transactions through Starbucks or open WLAN networks. But hey, if you have a better solution, bring it on. Misou 20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Misou, did you recommend this service to each other or was it a coinscidence ?

No, I did not recommend anyone to use this service. And I am a registered and paying customer since many years. Very anonymous. And you, sitting in an Internet Cafe, spreading rumors and dissent? Misou 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

You didn't recommend this service to anyone and it was not recommended by others to you ?! Sorry, but I don't believe you. It would be more likely to win in lottery twice. Espescially because you also used the same scientology.org access before(and now your-freedom.net ). 7 5 editors , working on one article with the same purpose can't use the same proxy by coincidence again(its impossible)! No more WP:AGF possible with you! If you would have recommended this service to each other it would at least explain this coincidence but as long you are denying it, I can't help you. -- Stan _talk 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I couldn't care less what you think about me. But you misinterpret the above table and invent some lies so you can attack me. I have seen this pattern often with German "anti-Scientology" fanatics, just recently again. Are you being taught that in school? Misou 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply

What did I actually interpret false ? What lies did I invent ? This ArbCom is not about me, but I think you already striped yourself ! -- Stan _talk 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply

For starters, this ArbCom is not about me either. Your inventions/lies: a) a "Scientology access", b) that I used something like that, c) I switched between anything (I am using your-freedom since it exists, some years that is, a had it installed on my laptop some months ago). You misinterpret the table to create the impression that all Scientologists should be treated as "one", all accesses should be treated as "one". So that "one" editor can be shot. Old nazi tactics, every member of the group is the same, alls Jews have crooked noses. It's called "Sippenhaft" in German. Is that what you are taught in school? Misou 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

a) you have used a scientology access! b) what do you mean ? c) what did I interpret false? ... and no, I do not want that all Scientologists are treated as "one". I didn't draw in other Scientologists like Bravehartbear, Justanother etc. I am happy if Scientologists contribute honestly and are removing false Anti-Scientology POV wich might occure in this articles! d) keep your nazi theories for youself! I am not a nazi nor a nationalist. e) Personally, I don't even think that you and COFS are the same person but reasonable explanations for this "sockpuppet incidents" are still missing! You could contribute to this arbcom constructively and resolve some confusions which some editors may have with you. But as long you prefer using blatant "nazi theories" against other editors instead ...... one of the reasons I gave up WP:AGF with you !-- Stan _talk 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

a) Nope, I have not. The Church does not provide internet access to me (unless you are in a Church building, Hotel or use WLAN around a Church). And even if so, what's the big deal? This ArbCom is not about technical details. b) you say I am using a), something that does not exist and so on. d) Nazi propaganda tactics are what they are, an easy to understand example for how not to treat a minority. Does not make you a Nazi (I don't think you are one, also not a nationalist). The similarity is in Sippenhaft, what one member of the group does is suddenly valid for every member of the group. Purpose: kick them all, not dealing with personalities. I could say Catholic tactics in 16th Century, but would that tell you something. Or Turk tactics against Armenians? I realize that there has been too much abuse of this comparison, so I won't use it. e) All right. What sockpuppet incidents? Using the same proxy/firewall/IP range? I don't know much about internet technology, but there was a lot of explanation by people who do in this debate so far. There are Scientologists using AOL, Earthlink, Starbucks, isn't that the same "IP range" too. Family members with one internet computer, same IP or not? This is about COI here not about phone lines. This sockpuppet thing does not work (see "Misou case") or is taken too serious. As I said everyone should give some statement about background, intent and reason for editing, so expectations are clear. Simple. But not popular, why? You said what your purpose is, I think, that's great. But who else? AndiCat? Nope. F451? Nope. Rooky? Nope. To tell you why that is would violate WP privacy policy, so I don't. POV-editing, mixed with some alibi edits (a colon or typo here, a bracket there, check it out). Poor show. So to solve this here, WP policy on COI has to be applied in all directions. Not chasing some girl who does not like to see her religion slandered for no good reason. Misou 11:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

scientology access: yes,no or maybe? Why can't you be more specific ? If you never used a scientology acces you should maybe ask for a new usercheck! How about resolving the misunderstanding ? I never saw you making any plausible statements about the usercheck? Did you maybe visit a "Scientology Hotel" once ? That could explain it. And maybe your-freedom.net is also installed on many computers used by CoS wich would explain why it shows up by so many editors. But as long you and the other editors don't give reasonable statements people will assume that you are connected with each other. I don't even have a problem with this kind of service. People in China and Scientology staffers might be dependent on it to gain uncensored access to the internet. But neither you or COFS gave a statement wich could explain their use of your-freedom.net(BTW, kind of funny that you use your-freedom.net because its a German provider and you deeply mistrust everything from Germany) I think, usually people get blocked if a usercheck confirms misuse of sockpuppets. You didn't get blocked in the first time(for using the same LA CoS access) and now it was also confirmed that you use the same proxy(your-freedom.net). You can't expect that editors will just let you emerge unscathed with that except you have a very good explanation for it!-- Stan _talk 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Possible explanations:

• they recommended this service to each other (denied by Misou)
• they are all staffs working for Scientology and on many computers is also your-freedom.net installed (Misou denies that and insists using your-freedom.net for personal reasons)
• they share the same computer sometimes (but they deny knowing each other)
• they are cheating here
• unbelievable coincidence happened and everyone used your-freedom.net privatly and also make sometimes edits from CoS IP's without knowing each other(note that the usercheck confirmed that they all used a Scientology acces in LA and not Clearwater where the major Scientology Hotel is.)
• the usercheck brought up false results and you are completly innocent -- Stan _talk 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• They use the same techie.
• They (that is COFS and Misou, not the others) do know each other since the checkuser request (read the discussion on that, it's in there).
• You are trying to re-invent the IP/checkuser issue but this Arbcom is about COI.
• I am not going to repeat myself.
• This means, I give up on you.
• This means, I am sick and tired about this know-best nonsense.
• Byebye.

Misou 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

(unindent) As a suspected or confirmed sock puppet of COFS, this case could be about you, in my opinion. What applies to her, applies to any socks. Calling us liars isn't going to help your cause. Invoking Godwin's law is kind of funny because Godwin was recently hired by the Wikimedia Foundation as General Counsel. Resorting to hyperbole is unconstructive. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am not hiding. Bring on some charges, no problem. But Stan En up there is trying to bend the truth so it fits to his "world". "Accidentially" then he is filling up this place with lies and misinterpretations. Not ok. Have him shut up and go back editing and I stop too. Thanks. Misou 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

PS, on your Goodwin comment. Read Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, last section. I think she got a better idea about discriminatory rhetoric than Mike Godwin (who IS a great character, technician and attorney, but NOT a sociologist). Misou 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Misou, maybe you don't understand our concern. Stan _talk, the arbcom, and myself among others have no way to know that this diagram is not what's happening:

I also got no way to know that you are not a brainwashed zombie controlled by some artificial intelligence. Or a 16-year old big mouth with a tendency to WEASEL words. I just don't know. But do I care? No, I don't. It's easy to claim the absurdest things and let the accused "prove the opposite". But this is not how fairness works. This is how slander propaganda works. Go visit history class, if that is a new concept for you. Misou 08:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

BTW, I haven't seen you becoming a speaker for some crowd here. So please speak for yourself, thanks. Misou 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Nobody is saying Scientologists should not edit Wikipedia. Anynobody 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No, that would be too obvious. Misou 08:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure you do, my contribution history is listed in several places (on this page, the evidence page, or just go to "my contributions" and replace your name with mine). If I was a mindless zombie would I be editing articles ranging from WWII to video games? Further, is it so absurd to assume editors using CoS servers to edit CoS articles might be working together as a project for the CoS? If several editors were shown to be accessing from a Microsoft Mormon server and editing Microsoft Mormon articles to remove any negative mentions are you saying that would be acceptable?

Lastly when I say "we" I'm not saying anything other's haven't said in this arbcom. (Seriously, look at the arbitrators votes to hear this case on the main page if you don't believe me.) Anynobody 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, someone moved my responses around (or was it me...?). Anyway, the zombie/"we" answer was to Stan, whom I guess is not you. Anyway2, this thread is over (check my talk page). Misou 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

What is the point of the 30-day ban?

I see a proposed remedy on the Proposed Decision page that "User:COFS's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days."

Can someone please explain to me the point of that? It seems like purely "punishment" to me. Punishment because this whole thing started on 18 June 2007 with this post. Sixty (60) days ago. So what is the point of a 30-day ban now if not punishment. And COFS has made exactly three (3) mainspace edits in the last 30 days, and exactly zero (0) in the last 17 days. So why are we banning him? So he can cool down? (Zero (0) mainspace edits in the last 17 days sounds "cooled down" to me.) Or is it punishment?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Beats the heck outta me. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Question put by -- Justanother 16:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I have to agree, per my retraction on the COIN, it seems like a delayed punishment. It was my understanding that this process was basically a way of seeing if
1) The allegations are correct
2) If so then a ruling which warns of future punishment.
3) If the behavior continues then the issue is brought up for arbcom enforcement. Like the proposal about me, nobody is suggesting an immediate block based on whatever I did in the past. It's needlessly unfair to block one and not both.

If COFS behavior was bad enough to warrant a 30 day block, it should have been imposed before 30 days passed. I don't mean any offense, but I thought Wikipedia was against punishment for punishment's sake, or is there a reason I don't see for this? Anynobody 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Every day that goes by confirms its punitive nature if enforced. At this point I'd prefer if the arbcom point out what she did that made them consider the 30 day block and advise any further occurrences could make her subject to it Anynobody 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Disclosure of report to WP:3RR regarding Justanother

I know that the report may raise some eyebrows here, and I want to be upfront about this. He seems to have violated the 3RR policy. However given the nature of what's being discussed here I felt that it was better that you should hear this from me first. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: Warned) Anynobody 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

FYI, this is exactly the sort of thing that will get you blocked if the remedies regarding your behavior toward Justanother pass. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

AN, it would have been nice if you had informed me that you were reporting me on WP:AN3. Luckily, it was seen for what it was, more of the same "interest in Justanother". -- Justanother 13:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

More of the same - diff. -- Justanother 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Unbefuckinglievable. "I'm just using [Justanother] as an example." Again and again and again: Justanother the eternal example. Jpgordon, the proposed harassment remedy and its enforcement by blocks are clearly going to pass. May we have a temporary harassment injunction right now to cover the time up to when they formally pass? Bishonen | talk 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC). reply

So essentially what you are saying is:

Situation	Editor X	Justanother
Violates WP:3RR while reporting Editor Y's violation on the same page	Report to WP:AN3	Report to WP:AN3 Harassment
Violates WP:3RR while reporting Editor Y's violation on the same page	Warn the editor myself	Warn him myself Harassment
Violates WP:3RR while reporting Editor Y's violation on the same page	Tell an admin I know about it (I really don't want to bother specific people about it)	Tell an admin I know about it Harassment
Comment on a WP:RSN involving:	Comment	Comment Harassment

Bishonen, with all due respect, if you didn't notice that in this case the 3RR noticeboard totally missed the fact that one editor who violated the vary rule it's meant to enforce reported and got another editor blocked for doing the exact same thing on the exact same page, then you are biased. (Or does Justanother have a special pass which allows him to disregard the rules he is enforcing?)

Or are you saying I should have waited for another editor to violate 3RR and report someone else before pointing it out? Anynobody 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

By the way, the point of the talk page post was to fix the system which allowed one editor to accuse another while doing the same thing on the same page and getting away with it. I'd like to invite everyone to comment on my suggestion; Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Anynobody 01:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: