Case Opened on 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed on 03:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 13:08, 3 June 2014(UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on theTalk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at/Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at/Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at/Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the#Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.
Note: I learned about this request today by accident. In the community discussion we had earlier agreed that I stay out for a while, so I did not log onto WP for quite some time and had not followed any discussion. Due to ongoing work-related projects I will also not be able to attend a talk/evidence presentation before14 20 July 2007. Sorry for that but I'll come back to participate after that date.COFS12:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first statement. I had no time to read through all the discussion. Why does this need to be spread allover the place, quite userunfriendly... Anyway. My points: a) there has been no community discussion and this story here is at the wrong place. There had not even been a community to discuss anything but the usual suspects with a history of edit warring giving their two cents on a person whose religion they attack on and off Wikipedia, namely F451. In my view the arbitration procedure is being abused right now to cut off a knowledgeable Wikipedian who could contribute a lot more to Scientology-related articles if she would not have to deal with anti-cultist gangbanging again and again. b) I think that Scientologists should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, no matter where they are and what technical equipment they use to access the internet. It is ridiculous to separate out groups of people or specific individuals because of their religious affiliation.
I submit this request for arbitration per recommendation byEl C at acommunity sanctions noticeboard thread that became too convoluted to achieve closure.[1]SheffieldSteel had proposed a community ban onCOFS citing tendentious editing on Scientology topics, multipleconfirmed sockpuppets including IP addresses that originate from official Church of Scientology computers, and a history of userblocks. I responded by proposing a three month topic ban, reducible to one month if COFS pledged to enterWP:ADOPT, and referred the editors todispute resolution. The topic ban, which is provisionally in place per El C's closure, allows COFS to post to article talk pages.
A minority of editors at the CSN thread voiced strong objections to any sanction on COFS and alleged that anti-Scientology editors were attempting to skew the articles. I extended an offer to both sides of the dispute to review separate reports of policy violations. When I conducted preliminary research on this dispute I uncovered circumstantial evidence that some pro-Scientology editors may have violatedWP:MEAT. That in turn led to accusations that I had acted improperly. This looks like a situation where multiple editors have acted in ways that merit examination perWP:OWN,WP:NPOV,WP:NPA, andWP:SOCK.WP:COI is also pertinent for at least one party.
The editors at this dispute have rejected my repeated recommendations that they pursue dispute resolution so the only viable alternative is to ask the Committee to examine this matter.DurovaCharge!02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like more blowing things out of proportion and misrepresentation byUser:Durova. Neither COFS' edit history nor her block history warrants sanctionnor does the recent editing climate in the subject articles(21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)). That is my interpretation of the result of theWP:CN discussion. Convoluted or not, if COFS' history warranted sanction, COFS would have been sanctioned. Nor is there any sockpuppet issue at all and no proven meatpuppet issue; simply a number of editors that share a proxy IP address and that was the outcome of the checkuser case. Durovastated that she would not abide by the results of the noticeboard if they did not go her way"If you refuse to volley we can serve a 3 month topic ban, and if consensus doesn't form for that I can still use my sysop tools as needed." I guess she decided that unilaterally blocking COFS would not go over so well so here we are. Icalled Durova on what I considered contributing to the misuse of the sanctions noticeboard. I felt that Durova was indulging herstated andrestated"hobby" for this sort of stuff at the expense of the proper usage of the sanctions noticeboard and at the expense of a good-faith editor that did not and does not deserve such treatment.
I should mention that I am not looking for anyWP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I was going to bring up the issue of the correct use ofWP:CN onWP:AN but not to go after Durova, simply to clarify the procedure. So I am not looking for anything here for myself though I would like Durova to find another subject for her "hobby". --Justanother03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that if this arbitration does start then I would like to see any COI issue for COFS resolved and I would also like to seeCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of COFS andCategory:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of COFS deleted as they were created by a highly POV editor(s) and are used by that editor(s) in what I consider bad faith to smear COFS at every opportunity. They are inconsistent with the actual situation, a number of editors sharing a proxy IP address. However, it is important to note that otherWP:DR remedies have not been applied in either case (and any admin is welcome to delete the categories - hint, hint) and I do agree with Lsi john thatWP:DR is being used in a backwards fashion, starting at community sanction, then to ArbCom, etc. --Justanother14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - please note that COFS has not edited since 22 June 2007, five days before this arb request was brought (most recent edit). --Justanother12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 - I also support Lsi john's withdrawal. I also prescribe copious daily slatherings of Dr. Nother's Patented Skin Thickener, "Builds thick skin from the outside in". Vaya con Dios, mi amigo. --Justanother23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to the arbitrators and to the clerks and to all involved for their efforts. --Justanother03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stunned.We are going backwards?!!
As a 'last step' of dispute resolution, this arbitration is WAY TOO SOON .
First sanctions failed. Now we are trying arbitration? Next is user Rfc?
This case improperly STARTED atWP:CSN.
"How about taking this toWikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits."Jehochman
To my knowledge there has been no user RfC, no mediation (failed or otherwise), and no evidence of trying, and failing, to resolve disputes withCOFS.
COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks, related to sock puppetaccusations, and were all subsequently 'unblocked'.
COFS addressed the COI question multiple times in the discussion1 example.
COFS was agreeable to resolutionhere. Durova ignored it.
RegardingCOFS, there is nothing for the committee to decide, as it is too soon.
Response to Anynobody He is using Quantity of reports as evidence of 'guilt' without regard to actual outcome of the reports. The same logic would make him just as guilty, given the number of AN/I reports against him.
Response to Jehochman COFS was never found to be 'operating sock puppets', it was a fishing expedition, look lower in that sockcheck where they even fished for me and were told to knock it off.
Response to Durova I am not suggesting covert operations. I am suggesting student overly zealous to please teacher.
This arbcom is related to whether COFS has a conflict of interest.
My only involvement in this situation was an attempt to ensure that the proper wiki-procedures were followed. I have no relevant information to contribute related to COFS, and no personal or direct knowledge related to any possible conflict of interest. I have no relationship with COFS or Scientology.
I trust that the committee will act properly and responsibly in this matter.
Due to personality differences leading up to this arbcom, and to avoid tainting or distracting the process in any way, I respectfully withdraw from this arbcom.Peace.Lsijohn14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree withDurova's assessment of the situation, and judgement, above. However it is also pertinent to note that afterWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, other than the actualconfirmed results of the checkuser case, no other details were fully established after the case, other than unproven claims of some sort of shared ip usage or filter by the confirmed users themselves, and discussion from others on the case's talk page. I agree withDurova's assessment, and also think that in the case ofUser:COFS as well as the other confirmed users, it is more likely thatWP:COI sockpuppeteering is going on here, as well as violations of the policies cited above byDurova, most notablyWP:COI,WP:SOCK,WP:MEAT, andWP:NPA.Smee04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It should be understood that I am not advocating the wholesale banning of Scientologists from editing Scientology articles just because they are affiliated with it. However, when a Scientologist continually makes questionable edits despite warnings from various editors, action is clearly called for.
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS was initiated because another account,CSI LA, seemed to take up an argument two separate times afterCOFS was blocked. The investigation ended up revealing several users with a pro-Scientology POV editing from the same IP.COFS has evidently continued to let theirWP:COI get in the way, based on the recent posts toWP:COIN andWP:CN.
I see no reason whyDurova's solution is unfair.COFS has been given numerous warnings and the ban would still allow posting to Scientology talk pages thusnot eliminating their opinion.
The vocal group opposed to the ban include some editors who could find themselves in the same situationCOFS is in if they continue editing the way they haveAND this solution is implemented. I feel that it is for this reason that some have been so passionate about decryingDurova's efforts here and onWP:CN.Anynobody04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence, workshop, and discussion in this case shows that aconflict of interest exists forCOFS and some other editors on subjects related toScientology. The conflict manifests by a pattern of removing cited material, edit warring, and accusations of religious bigotry/persecution toward those who do not fall in line with their POV. When asked for proof of such behavior by anti-Scientology editors to back up the allegations, none is provided but new or unrelated accusations may be given instead, and the cycle repeats. The whole time using Church of Scientology internet resources, and then later using open proxy services which hide this affiliation. This type of behavior has negative implications for the credibility of Wikipedia, as recently shown by the introduction ofWikiScanner. This has also shown that such editing is not confined to the CoS only, therefore how the case is handled could be used in any future situations like this with other groups. 06:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I am one of Durova's admin trainees. While on routineWP:COIN patrol, I noticed acomplaint aboutUser:COFS and two other editors who had allegedly whitewashed theScientology article. COFS has been listed onWP:COIN before, and wasfound to have operated sockpuppets, and to have used the Church of Scientology's proxy server. That raised an obvious conflict of interest concern.Previous blocks had been issued against COFS, yet the apparent COI editing continued. That's why I suggested toUser:SheffieldSteel that he bring this case to theCommunity Sanctions Noticeboard.[2]
I don't remember editing any Scientology-related articles, except: Imediated a dispute between anti-Scientology activistUser:Hkhenson (Keith Henson) and an unrelated editor overCapture bonding. This mediation ended prematurely when Henson was incarcerated. At the time I noticed seriousWP:BLP violations in theKeith Henson article, removed them, and cleaned up the article a bit.
My concerns here are the incivility and disruptions caused by the constant edit warring between the pro- and anti-Scientology factions, and the waste of time inflicted onWP:COIN volunteers who are already stretched thin. I have attempted to counsel parties on both sides that they should stop fighting, respect each other's views, and work together to create good or featured articles. I urge the committee members to take on this case and fashion whatever remedies they see fit.JehochmanTalk02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All numbering based on/Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Wikipedia'sNeutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic.
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 areexpected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.
4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.
5)Username policy discourages the use of names of corporations and other organizations as user names. While the main reason for this prohibition is to discourage casual promotion of relatively unknown organizations by this means, an ancillary reason is to avoid questions of whether the user is acting in some official capacity for the organization so named.
6) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.
8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based onWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)
1) User COFS, through a pattern of editing and user and talk page posts, appears to be working towards a pro-Scientology point of view at the expense of NPOV.
2) COFS is a common abbreviation for theChurch of Scientology. As such, this user name is in violation ofapplicable policy. Further, there is confusion as to whether this user is acting in some official capacity on behalf of the Church of Scientology.
4) Anynobody has since at least March 2007 complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence, and sometimes without relevance to mainspace editing, on WP:ANI, a variety of user talkpages,WP:RFA, and other fora, some of them clearly not intended for such use.
5) Checkuser evidence shows that multiple editors have made strongly pro-Scientology POV edits from Scientology-owned IPs, in particular ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org.
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.
2) User:COFS must choose a new user name, request reattribution of previous edits to this new name, and maintain links between the two user pages.
4) User:COFS is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics.
5) Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother.
6) Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. This remedy implies no judgement concerning Justanother's conduct, but is intended to ensure a balanced situation together with remedy 5, above.
7) All Scientology-related articles are placed onarticle probation.
1) Should Anynobody violate the prohibition on harassment, they may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans are to be logged atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans.
Remedy 7 of theCOFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed understandard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of theScientology case.
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
 | User:Shutterbug,User:Makoshack, andUser:Misou claim to be separate people editing from a shared IP address. Per Principle 8,Multiple editors with a single voice, all blocks and bans applied to any one of these editors should be applied to all[4].Thatcher13113:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] |
*Justanother (talk ·contribs) placed on the special restrictions byRyulong pursuant toWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother:DurovaCharge!17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]