Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision

Active:

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Morven
• Paul August
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

• Flcelloguy
• Mackensen
• Neutrality
• Raul654

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

User:Kwsn here (I'm on a hotel computer, so no logging on for me), and I'm just wondering why the "mutual pestering ban" didn't make it here. Just curious. 24.39.50.51 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hasn't yet, that's all. It's a work in progress. Of course, if the parties involved will simply agree not to pester each other, we won't need to make it official. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, thanks for clearing it up. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is the wrong place. When is this arbitration due to finish and who decides that? Misou 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The committee members working on the case will make a motion to close when the work on the case appears to them to be complete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thought something like that. Misou 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there's no proposal to put the Scientology series on article parole. That's done a lot of good for Waldorf education/Anthroposophy and I think it would help here. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being so picky, but I noticed that "username" is written as one word in the section header, and as two words ("user name") in the FoF itself. Which spelling do you prefer? Melsaran 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church Of Scientology is pretty obvious, but where does the F come from? hbdragon88 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the assumption is that it stands for "C(hurch) OF S(cientology)", with the "of" spelled out. "C of S" --> COFS. If I have interpreted this wrong I'm sure someone will say so. Newyorkbrad 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Strangely enough, COFS does not redirect to the Church of Scientology article. hbdragon88 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not strange, I have been around for quite a while out and in and out of Scientology and I NEVER saw the abbreviation COFS (or CofS) being used for Church of Scientology. It's "CoS". Misou 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen cofs used as an abbrevation for church of scientology many times. cos is used as well.--Fahrenheit451 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this case has been ongoing real world news coverage turned its attention to IP editing at Wikipedia from a variety of organizations. Scientology has been one of those organizations.

Occasionally I write about Wikipedia for offsite publications and (very occasionally) get contacted by journalists. So in order avoid confusion about this case or my role in it, I have recused myself from public discussion about the media's coverage of Wikipedia and Scientology with one exception: at the Village Signpost tipline I advised another named party from this case against posting about Scientology news while arbitration remains open. I have praised Virgil Griffith's scanner in general terms, but I have drawn no attention to the information it generates about the Church of Scientology's IP editing history. Appropriate standards of conduct for a sysop are vague in this situation so I've taken a conservative approach. Sometimes I cite closed cases in later discussions.

The court of public opinion can be a harsh judge. If my own decisions in this case appeared aggressive, it was because I anticipated and attempted to mitigate those larger consequences. Durova^Charge! 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:COFS was renamed to User:Shutterbug today. Secretlondon 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case any arbs were wondering, here is the reason for the change now. The usurpation request was filed because it looked like the decision would require a name change. Because the request was filed before the remedy was fully supported (enough votes), the case was not done, and the 30 day ban wasn't over, Secretlondon asked whether or not it should be done now, after the case had closed, or after the 30 day ban had been completed, as prescribed by the remedy. Uninvited Company suggested it be done now, and Jdforrester agreed. On that information, it was decided at the usurpation request to do it now. Just so you all know why, and to avoid confusion as to why COFS is now known as Shutterbug. i ^said 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that proposals have been added providing that a user be "banned from harassing" another. Up until now, the term "banned" has had a specific meaning in the context of arbitration decisions and enforcement, as in "banned from editing" or "topic ban" or "article ban." May I suggest that in this context, wording such as "prohibited from harassing" be used. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have so done. Good catch.

James F. (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment: Might I respectfully point out that, though this is true in principle, it's absurdly worded. No offense intended but ... what EXACTLY does this mean: "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"

Who decides whether or not they can make a genuine good-faith effort. And, what exactly is a genuine good-faith effort? From who's perspective? Hitler made a genunie good-faith effort to purify the human race.. though we'd all agree it was horribly misguided, I think it probably was a genuine good-faith effort from his perspective.

How strong must a belief be before it prevents someone from making a genuine good-faith effort? Suppose they Genuinely believe the are removing POV but are really adding POV?

This wording is incredibly SUBJECTIVE and VAGUE and could be applied to anyone by anyone with a different viewpoint. It can't possibly be strictly applied because it isn't strictly worded.

Peace.Lsi john 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COI should be defined narrowly because editors frequently make COI accusations to gain the upper hand in editing disputes. Everybody has "allegiances" and "beliefs." Those stick out as too expansive. "Duties" is a fine way to define COI. If an editor believes in Scientology, she may be a POV pusher as a result, but that's not COI. If an editor receives something of value from the Church of Scientology in exchange for editing a certain way, that's COI.- Jehochman ^Talk 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) Recruiting editors to join Wikipedia for the purpose of editing in subject areas where they have duties, allegiances, or beliefs at odds with our NPOV policy is highly disruptive, since a numeric majority of editors pursuing a particular point of view may overwhelm efforts by others to seek NPOV.

Comment: again, this is true. But it is based on KNOWING the MOTIVE for the recruitment. Unless a motive is explicitly stated, we can only guess or assume. If we do not AGF then we break our own rules of conduct. Therefore this principle is also VAGUE and rather pointless. We base our policy decisions on the OUTCOME of the EDITS, not the reason the person was brought here. If you were asked to edit on wiki by someone with a POV motive but you edit NPOV, how can we declare that to be unconstructive or disruptive? Peace.Lsi john 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment: Far too restrictive. What about religious beliefs? What about club membership? Why limit it to 'work related'? And what about anonymous editing? Suppose that revealing the nature of their work forces them to reveal their identity. Won't that conflict with our other rules and values here? Peace.Lsi john 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)

Comment: I'm impressed that this made it here. I applaud whoever put it here. It speaks directly to my concerns about the 'MIS-interpretation' of Checkuser results.. Thank you. Peace.Lsi john 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: This is also a bit absurd. Why single COFS out?

A) There is no evidence to suggest that COFS did any recruiting.

B) NOBODY should be doing POV recruiting. Why name a specific person who has never been convicted or accused of such recruitment?

Peace.Lsi john 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) User:COFS's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days.

Comment: So much for bans are not PUNITIVE. COFS makes VERY FEW edits to begin with. I've seen no real evidence that any of the edits were actually POV edits. At worst some are subjective. What purpose does a ban serve in this case? If bans are preventative.. and if COFS rarely edits to begin with.. are we just flexing our muscle to be tough and prove we can ban someone? bah. Peace.Lsi john 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this: Why ban COFS for 30 days? She has agreed to change user name, and if there is further POV pushing, any admin can issue a block. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) The most plausible explanation for the presence of a number of users editing from a pro-Scientology point of view who appear to share the same physical network connection with COFS (talk · contribs) is that these users have been recruited by COFS or a related individual.

Comment: This is the most plausible answer you can find?! How many scientologists do you think exist? How many are represented here? Given their membership levels, I think Scientology is UNDER-REPRESENTED. And the most plausible explanation for that is the extreme behavior by the anti-scientologists? Therefore, I think you've got it turned around. but what the hell do I know.. Peace.Lsi john 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how these arbitration things work, so if those oppose/support fields were only for certain editors and not open for anyone to chime in, apologies in advance, please delete my comments. wikipediatrix 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Proposed decision page is the place where the Arbitration Committee votes on the case. No one else comments or edits this page except the clerks that help us with keep the pages and case in order. Please make your comments on this talk page or the case Workshop page. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, would it be possible to punish justanother if he baits Anynobody into violating his harrassment ban (assuming that passes)? Kwsn(Ni!) 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Durova^Charge! 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if Justanother gets involved with something Anynobody is involved with, which ends up with Anynobody violating the proposed harassment ban as a result of Justanother's actions there, it wouldn't be fair to me that Justanother can bait Anynobody into violating the ban and not get at least a similar block for it. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not every theoretically possible situation that needs spelling out in an arbitration decision. If something like that happened (which is a rather far-fetched and bad-faith-assuming idea, since nobody has accused Justanother of provocative or baiting conduct), I'm sure many admins would be ready to block Justanother, just per common sense. I know I would. And I very much doubt that Anynobody would be blocked at all in such a situation. The remedy against Anynobody is clearly meant to stop him exercising his ingenuity in pestering Justanother; not to test his capacity for enduring pinpricks from Justanother. Justanother will be in deep shit if there's any of that. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Posting here as an editor, of course, and not with any sort of clerk hat on.)

This case was filed in June, opened on July 2, and placed into voting on July 27. Unless there is something very serious going on behind the scenes, the length of time the case has been sitting here almost finished is excessive, and I submit that the case needs to be wrapped up and closed in the reasonably near future.

Somewhat inconsistent with my desire to see the case close soon, I submit that with the passage of time, the 30-day ban against the user formerly known as COFS needs to be reevaluated. I have no strong view on whether the ban was appropriate when proposed, but at this late date its enforcement might best be suspended. I find the idea of imposing a ban for October based on edits from May to be troubling, especially in the absence of any allegation of ongoing problems. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shutterbug seems to have occasional friction with other editors, but is trying to do better. I am the one who sort of instigated this case, and I don't think a 30 day ban is necessary. If the user causes problems, our administrators can take appropriate action. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shutterbug has recently violated WP:CIVIL in several places in this MedCab discussion: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31_David_Miscavige. [1] [2][3][4][5][6]Has this user really reformed?--Fahrenheit451 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the case weren't so overdue to close, I would suggest that some form of civility or other appropriate supervision or restriction should be adopted in place of the ban. As it is, even if the arbitrators don't impose a remedy, I think that administrators will know that this user's editing has raised difficulties in the past and might be worth keeping an eye on in the event of future problems. When the case is closed, I will leave him a note that he should not regard the decision, by any means, as a free pass for POV or uncivil edits (nor should anyone else do so). Newyorkbrad 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you. F451 with this continual trolling to get your "enemies" sanctioned. That diff (1) shows no incivility to the mediator and you know it. And the other is not particularly uncivil either. --Justanother 23:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, you are clearly violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with your hostile remarks.You found one civil response but pointedly ignored the uncivil ones.--Fahrenheit451 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am commenting on your behavior, which happens to be habitual on your part. --Justanother 23:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, I am commenting on your misbehavior here. You are being uncivil and assuming bad faith. By the way, are you stalking me?--Fahrenheit451 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your presentation on Shutterbug speaks for itself. You can have the last word; at least as far as I am concerned. --Justanother 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, it does speak for itself indeed. It shows that this user has not reformed. --Fahrenheit451 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here;[7]--Fahrenheit451 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, I think the real problem is your incessant baiting, e.g. this which drew the response you highlight. Where is the civility and AGF in your remark? --Justanother 01:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, why do you not mention that Shutterbug retracted that scatological remark in the very next edit to the page within minutes, here? Obviously your baiting got a rise out of him. "Bait and bitch", F451. You are the master of the craft. --Justanother 01:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, your posts above indicate that you violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There was no baiting there.--Fahrenheit451 01:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's time for you guys to take this elsewhere; your comments here will have no bearing on the outcome of the case, which is probably fortunate for both of you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken. --Justanother 11:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrating negative attention on one or a few other users is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. To me means mentioning one's mistakes and foibles at times when they are not pertinent to a situation/conversation. In order to ensure I understand what is being proposed I'll give two examples, one that is and one that is not harassment.

Harassment

Showing up on a page unrelated to Scientology where Justanother is editing and mentioning his historical COI regarding Scientology and all violations related too it.

Not Harassment

On the Workshop page Justanother proposed a view of WP:COI as he sees it, which I feel is incomplete. Citing his own edits to illustrate my point is pertinent since I've been saying he has a COI on Scientology related subjects.

In other words it's the difference between holding one accountable for their actions, and just trying to bother/hurt/otherwise attack that person? (I'm assuming This does not preclude legitimate complaints or inquiries about the behavior of other users. is meant to convey this idea, and hoping the original iteration which has more votes is assuming itself.) Anynobody 04:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the way of looking at it. More important is that what you're doing here, on this page, in your post an inch above, is harassment. You're illustrating a general question with examples that quite unnecessarily involve Justanother. As I understand it, you're being reprimanded and sanctioned for doing exactly that thing. At least, the sanction against you is presumably based on my evidence (since nobody else has given any evidence relevant to the issue), and my evidence is largely about how you unnecessarily drag in Justanother everywhere: you ask a general question on ANI, or you ask for editor review, etc, etc, and the examples you use just happen to involve Justanother. That, Anynobody, is what you're supposed to not do any more. You're doing it in your post above. I hope it's the last time. Do it again after the case is closed, and it's block time. If this is so hard for you to grasp, I guess your only safe option is to never again say anything whatsoever about or to Justanother, by name or hint. Stop taking an interest in him. Already. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

Bishonen, you are really wrong if you think I can give examples of dealing with Justanother to find out if it's what the arbcom is talking about, without mentioning Justanother. This is a prime example of your bias against me, towards him, if it's so simple to find out which of my past dealings with Justanother have/have not constituted harrassment I would really appreciate it if you shared the secret of how to do that. Anynobody 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

• Yup. Harassment is going to be interpreted broadly; once the case is closed (tomorrow), pretty much anything like you've been doing here will get you progressively longer blocks. Find something else to do with your time on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? Asking about what harassment is, turns out to be harassment? No offense, but that sounds totally unreasonable. You're essentially saying harassment is any time I happen to come in contact with him?

• Bishonen said I set up a WP:RFA to abuse processes and bring up Justanother again: Yet I didn't bring it up.
• Bishonen and Justanother said I set up a WP:ER to abuse processes and back door RfC him somehow:If Bishonen was right about the RfC I was hoping to get feedback from editors I haven't dealt with for the sake of neutrality. Further if indeed Justanother had done nothing wrong, then I don't see how asking other editors to explain that to me is somehow going against him.
• Bishonen said I asked general questions on ANI to harass Justanother:Since I have seen editors compile evidence pages, when Justanother said that was against the rules without citing one that discussed it, I asked the people at ANI what the real story was. How is that harassment, I just want to know the correct answer?

• Last but certainly not least, Bishonen says I have a habit of pestering editors with easy to answer questions. If they are so easy to answer, why doesn't Bishonen just link to a diff showing where she clearly answered it? The basic questions I've had, and still do for Bishonen, should be able to be answered quickly and simply (or linked to a diff) if she's right.

Bishonen said not enough of a good faith effort was made on the controversial RFC/U on Justanother:

Q: Why did Daniel approve the RFC/U then?

A: Bishonen said that itis standard proceure to move requests into the approved section, but didn't mean it was approved...Approved but not approved at the same time doesn't make sense, and this is one of the "simple questions" I've asked Bishonen about which she claims to have answered, if so Where's the diff?