Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 11 July 2007

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

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

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

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey, use this form: .

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Fahrenheit451

The Church of Scientology International is a corporation

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

Rebuttal of Justanother's statements given below

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

One legal entity, one voice

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

Evidence presented by Anynobody (talk · contribs · logs)

Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · logs)

I am neutral toward the CoS*

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

• Neutrality I politely asked an uninvolved editor for sources before adding "negative" information into L. Ron Hubbard
  
• Neutrality 2-1 - Neutrality 2-2 I remove "negative" unsourced information as well.

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

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

Anynobody 05:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

COFS (talk · contribs · logs) is an example of how WP:COI leads to other trouble

Template:Multicol COFS on WP:OR
COFS falsely accuses Tilman of vandalism.
COFS on POV. Template:Multicol-break COFS on WP:AGF, WP:STALK, and WP:NPOV
COFS on WP:3RR.
COFS on "attack the attacker" policy of the CoS. Template:Multicol-end

If this were just one editor's behavior I wouldn't think this to be such an important issue, however COFS is not alone in this pattern on articles regarding Scientology as shown in the next section. Anynobody 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Accounts which focus on a pro-Scientology POV increase the amount of time neutral editors must spend to properly edit related articles

Edit patterns of accounts shown to be sharing CoS owned IPs:

---

Template:Multicol Template:Multicol-break COFS
15 most edited articles:
100% related to Scientology:
#1 Scientology: 127 Template:Multicol-break CSI LA
8 most edited articles:
100% related to Scientology:
#1 L. Ron Hubbard: 12 Template:Multicol-break Misou
15 most edited articles:
100% related to Scientology:
#1 L. Ron Hubbard: 97 Template:Multicol-break Makoshack
15 most edited articles:
100% related to Scientology:
#1 Youth for Human Rights International: 13 Template:Multicol-break Su-Jada
10 most edited articles:
80% related to Scientology:
#1 Scientology: 40 Template:Multicol-break Grrrilla
6 most edited articles:
100% related to Scientology:
#1 Scientology: 25 Template:Multicol-break Template:Multicol-end Edit patterns of two Scientologist accounts which are not using the IPs:

---

Template:Multicol Justanother
15 most edited articles:
73% related to Scientology:
#1 (Main) Scientology: 110', #1 Talk Scientology: 320 Template:Multicol-break Bravehartbear
6 most edited articles:
83% related to Scientology:
#1 Scientology: 140 Template:Multicol-end The edit pattern of a banned account:

---

Terryeo
15 most edited articles:
100% related to Scientology:
#1 (Main) Dianetics: 208, #1 Talk Dianetics: 729

Two notes about this information;
1. These figures are for (Main) and Talk namespace edits only.
2. Every editor listed had more edits on their most edited article than it's respective talk page, except the two identified who had substantially more edits to talk pages. Here are my edits, under both accounts:
Template:Multicol See: About my interest in L. Ron Hubbard Template:Multicol-break Anynobody
15 most edited articles:
33% related to Scientology:
#1 (Main) L. Ron Hubbard: 184, #1 Talk L. Ron Hubbard: 307 Template:Multicol-break Anyeverybody
15 most edited articles:
6% related to Scientology:
#1 (Main) L. Ron Hubbard and the military: 13, Template:Multicol-end

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

Examples of Scientologists harassing neutral admins and editors

Example 1:
Subject
A block, 23 April 2007 on Misou which lasted one week for ongoing violations of WP:CIVIL by EVula.
26 April No admins disagreed and at least one said the block was appropriate.

Template:Multicol Background: Justanother starts a section on User talk:EVula regarding the length of block on Misou.

EVula is willing to listen but no persuasive arguments are made. Up to this point I feel there has been nothing uncalled for done, it's natural for wikifriends to investigate the possibility another is being treated poorly.

The behavior which followed on Evula's talk page and the WP:ANI board was to portray EVula as a POV biased admin. Making such accusations is most uncalled for in my opinion; Template:Multicol-break Evidence:

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

Other examples to follow if necessary, I don't want to overwhelm anyone. Anynobody 03:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit marks

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

1. Anynobody 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Anynobody 04:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Original

Evidence presented by Justanother (talk · contribs · logs)

Note: This will be my only post here for about one week as I am leaving on holiday tomorrow and am pointedly NOT bringing a laptop with me and will try to stay as far from the internet as possible. --Justanother 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is a religion and the Church of Scientology is a church

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

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

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

Quick clarification of my personal position

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Jehochman

Username "COFS" is an abbreviation for Church OF Scientology

From Misplaced Pages:Username policy:

"If you choose not to use your real name, you should pick a username that doesn't interfere with the writing of this encyclopedia. That means a name that you're comfortable writing under, but also one that others are comfortable seeing and collaborating with. A controversial name may affect other users' perspective on your credibility or political or religious viewpoint. Avoiding controversial names is in your own interest."

COFS has chosen a username that creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, and undermines the ability of other editors to assume of good faith. The username makes it appear that the Church of Scientology is editing it's own articles, and serves to make editors suspicious that COFS is whitewashing or POV pushing within the Scientology articles. and . Note how User:SheffieldSteel made this assumption prior to filing the initial complaint at WP:COIN, which led directly to this arbitration. Whether intentional or not, this choice of username is a needless provocation, and serves to ignite and inflame disputes. COFS has not yet requested a change of username.

Similarly, the alleged sock CSI LA has a username that apparently stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. This has also attracted attention from other users. Jehochman 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Fubar Obfusco

The Church of Scientology has a history of abusing online media

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Durova

WP:COI and Scientology

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

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

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

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

Justanother, WP:COI, and WP:AGF

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Jpgordon

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

Coincident IP usage of selected Scientology-related editors.

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

IPs:

1. ws.churchofscientology.org.
2. hostnoc.net IP in PA
3. IP in Munich
4. IP in Berlin
5. different IP in Munich
6. ns1.scientology.org

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

Statement by COFS

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

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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