Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:19, 19 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

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.

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 05:16, 15 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:

---

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

---

Justanother
15 most edited articles:
73% related to Scientology:
#1 (Main) Scientology: 110', #1 Talk Scientology: 320 Bravehartbear
6 most edited articles:
83% related to Scientology:
#1 Scientology: 140 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:
See: About my interest in L. Ron Hubbard Anynobody
15 most edited articles:
33% related to Scientology:
#1 (Main) L. Ron Hubbard: 184, #1 Talk L. Ron Hubbard: 307 Anyeverybody
15 most edited articles:
6% related to Scientology:
#1 (Main) L. Ron Hubbard and the military: 13,

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)

Accounts shown to be sharing CoS owned IPs working together

Items that span multiple diffs included with comments.

1. Su-Jada and COFS to get the whole story I recommend using the ← Older edit/Newer edit → links a few times.
   
2. Misou and COFS after COFS reverts a sourced edit by AndroidCat.
   
3. Misou and Su-Jada

Anynobody 11:19, 15 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. '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; 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 23:37, 11 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. I don't know how I did it, but these weren't the link (singular) I meant to include.
4. Original

Evidence presented by Justanother (talk · contribs · logs)

Note: I will be removing and refactoring my evidence section as I see fit to limit it to limit my presentation to evidence that is relevant to the subject(s) of this arbitration as I understand them. I will not use my evidence section to attack or counter-attack other editors unless the actions of that editor are part of this arbitiration. Otherwise I will limit such disussion to the talk page. I would also hope that I can set an example by doing this. --Justanother 14:19, 15 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.

Justanother takes the stand

/places his right hand on the Dianetics book and swears to tell the truth, etc.

I just wanted to enter into evidence that I am not maintaining that there is no COI issue to be discussed here. I have stated elsewhere that I have, from way back in May after the WP:RFCU, suggested that COFS and the other subject editors clarify how and where they may edit (here is just one of my many mentions that there are issues to be clarified). I am NOT here in some "Us vs. Them" capacity. I am not here in a COI situation of my own. I have truth, justice, and the Wikipedian way as my sole motivations. While I may respond sharply to, IMO, unwarranted and off-topic attacks on myself, I am completely ready to work with others on all sides of the issue in a spirit of co-operation to bring this to a fair and proper conclusion. --Justanother 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jehochman

Username "COFS" may violate username policy, and inflame disputes

COFS is an abbrevation for Church of Scientology. When COFS edits Scientology articles, other editors immediately suspect a conflict of interest. and . User:SheffieldSteel made this assumption prior to filing the initial complaint at WP:COIN, which led directly to this arbitration.

The alleged sock CSI LA account's username apparently stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. This has also drawn suspicion from other users. - Jehochman 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Justanother has a COI related to Scientology

Wikipediatrix pointed out an interesting diff:

• Eliminates bias:
• Seeks help from User:Bishonen (User:Lsi john's mentor) with a WP:BLP situation:
• Removes linkspam:
• Backs off from 3RR violation:

Upon discussion with Justanother, I understand better the situation and have decided to remove this evidence because it's a distraction from the main theme of this case. Jehochman 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Justanother

• Justanother operates a sockpuppet account called User:JustaHulk which has been blocked for trolling. User:Bishonen explained that this block was a mistake, so striking this. Jehochman 21:09, 17 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)

Burden of evidence

When handling this case I've treated the following as presumptively valid:

• COFS's block history
• COFS's checkuser result

Lsi john and Justanother have had extensive discussions with me about that. Essentially they propose an interpretation of WP:AGF that shifts the burden of evidence onto editors who would defend the validity of the block history and checkuser. Then they advance several arguments toward a conclusion that COFS has no sockpuppets or meatpuppets, has no WP:COI, and has only two valid user blocks for WP:3RR. If their reasoning is meritorious then the community topic ban discussion was very inappropriate.

The three of us have been unable to agree. If the Committee holds some or all of their points to be valid then that will set a precedent for similar cases. The other named parties are welcome to present their reasons; they could express them better than I can. Here is my assessment:

Although the Committee may overturn a checkuser result or an editor who has checkuser privileges might change a finding, the most I could do is forward new evidence to their attention. The people who have checkuser privileges have not altered the result so I trust that the result remains valid.

Since I accept the checkuser I also accept its conclusion that COFS has edited Misplaced Pages through Church of Scientology computers. To my understanding this represents clear WP:COI and it makes no difference whether CoS is a religion or a business or whether COFS is an employee or a volunteer: a person who uses official computer equipment appears to speak for that organization. Additional evidence might sway this part of my analysis if, for example, the CoS IT department were to confirm that it operates large computer labs open to general CoS membership. In that case this could be comparable to educational IP addresses where the organization has little control over user actions. Burden of evidence must rest with COFS and his or her supporters for this because a person who edits Misplaced Pages in a problematic manner creates a public appearance of impropriety - my bottom line understanding of COI is how would this look in a newspaper?

Justanother and Lsi john have parsed the block log upon the presumption that every block which was shortened is fundamentally invalid. I wouldn't carry that reasoning as far as they do. Although three of COFS's five blocks did get reduced, none were overturned on appeal and the indef block reduction of May 3 kept COFS blocked until May 10. It is not uncommon for a sysop to try good faith unblocks where real problems exist. Here are three recent examples where I was involved. All of those are touch-and-go situations: I hope things work out but I haven't endorsed the editors' conduct and they could easily get banned again. I think the burden rests with COFS and that editor's defenders to supply evidence that distinguishes this situation from those. Durova 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of impropriety

Justanother's evidence asks the Committee to extend good faith and assume that COFS and other Scientology-sympathetic editors have not crossed the line regarding conflict of interest or collusion. Yet on 11 October 2006 Justanother began a section entitled "An open letter to Scientology PR people" on his own user page. This includes the lines I stress the importance of wikipedia and invite more Scientologists to edit here in a spirit of cooperation and This is a big job and the more people working on it, the better. It goes on to analyze Misplaced Pages's prominence in Google search results and to speculate that this site's coverage of Scientology has been skewed by anti-Scientology activists. Justanother edited this twice more in October, again in December, and in February 2007 before blanking the page on June 4, 2007. During this period Justanother created several subordinate pages in userspace toward an aim of recruiting and coaching Scientologists to edit Misplaced Pages.

From User:Justanother/writeup:

Official PR people should ensure that supporting docs are posted on Scn sites for non-controvesial(sic) issues. Supporting docs related to controversial issues must be posted or reported elsewhere also, like something supporting the efficacy of Narconon should be on a .edu or .gov or in the press.

Use your access to Scn materials to provide sources; you can use LRH tapes and any published material as sources along with mags like Advance or Source

Related pages in Justanother's user space include the following:

• User:Justanother/writeup/outline
• User:Justanother/Welcome_message
• User:Justanother/File1

I also located a specific instance where this person posted to a different website and self-identified as Misplaced Pages's editor Justanother while attempting to recruit a fellow Scientologist to edit Scientology articles on Misplaced Pages. From Scienowiki:

Regarding wikipedia, your help is welcome as it is kinda an uphill fight for me and a very few others. I imagine that you have tried before over there but you are welcome back! --Justanother 03:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of Justanother's advice and descriptions may be reasonably Wikipedian, yet there can be no doubt that this editor embarked upon a public relations campaign at Misplaced Pages on behalf of Scientology. To the best of my knowledge this editor did so as a private individual, not under any formal aegis. Justanother has pursued this strategy in preference to normal channels such as third opinion or mediation. Justanother's first use of any dispute resolution option was a 21 February 2007 post to a request for comment. By that time Justanother had indexed links on his userpage to three different Misplaced Pages attack sites.

Justanother's approach to conflict has remained consistent over time, raising aggressive procedural objections to formal actions. A few examples follow:

• User_talk:Justanother/Archive1#Reblocked
• User_talk:Justanother/Archive7#Blocked_for_24_hours
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_10#COFS_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_deleted_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29

Also of interest is an exchange between Justanother and Lsi john that was ongoing during the WP:CSN thread about COFS. This unusual conversation was hidden from general readership because it took place beneath a redirect script at Justanother's user page. Due to multiple blankings and overwrites it can only be read via page diffs. It begins on 7 June 2007. This can be our secret chat room. bwahahahahahahaha.How does a person become a pirate? First you become an admin. Welcome to the Misplaced Pages Pirates Club secret clubhouse!

Some of Justanother's assertions are impossible to reconcile. Compare the following:

Posted to four different talk pages as self-description: "I am an ex-Scientologist and though I am not great supporter of the CoS, I recognize a slant when I see one."

Subsequently posted to User:Justanother/writeup/outline#Welcome as self-description: I am a Scientologist in good standing with the Church of Scientology and have been a Scientologist for over 30 years.

For these reasons I do not trust Justanother's assertions. I leave it to the Committee to determine the significance of these findings. Durova 06:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman

At the workshop page for this case Justanother suggests Jehochman acted improperly at WP:CSN. He's referred to as my apprentice in the following diff. It is true that Jehochman is one of my admin coaching students. He and I did not discuss this matter offsite until I had already opened a request for arbitration. We happened to post to the same threads because our editing interests are similar.

Other aspersions have been cast against him in relation to this case:

• Jehochman, two reverts, 10 hours apart in the past 25 hours, hardly constitutes edit warring. Shame on you for posting evidence of not-warring and suggest that it implies warring.
• A redacted comment with an interesting edit note.
• Now that I realize Jehochman is Durova's apprentice, the tag-team-concensus between Jehochman and Durova makes more sense. They acted as prosecutor, judge and jury in concert with each other.
• Jehochman clearly doesn't like those people (Scientologists)...It makes perfect sense that Jehochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack.

Actually my own evaluations were consistently milder than Jehochman's. At WP:COIN he requested a userblock on COFS when I hoped warnings would be sufficient. At that thread Jehochman demonstrated willingness to accept feedback and downgrade his warnings as recognition not of my feedback but of Justanother. When COFS became the subject of a second COIN listing in June Jehochman suggested a community ban on the editor. Yet when I saw the proposal on 18 June I considered a siteban premature and downgraded the discussion to a three month topic ban. When I returned to the thread three days later I compromised again and proposed a 1 month topic ban with formal mentorship. Another example where our evaluations differed happened yesterday. I suggested he strikethrough an evidence post because the topic seemed minor and he used a stronger term than I thought was merited.

It does impress me to see an editor respond well to feedback, although I'm less likely to be impressed by the need for it, but what I really like to see is how Jehochman accepted the validity of a comment from Justanother. That shows his willingness to consider an argument on its merits rather than upon his estimate of the person who made it and it is one of many reasons I think he'll make a fine administrator someday. Regarding his neutrality, Jehochman has a longstanding commitment to COIN and topics that relate to it. He was a major contributor to the now-featured search engine optimization article and started the Misplaced Pages:Search engine optimization essay. His handling of this matter is consistent with the way he addresses other WP:COI issues (which is how this came to his attention and what he interprets this to be). If he has any bias for or against Scientology, I am unaware of it. I consider the accusations against him to be bad faith, uncivil, and counterfactual. Jehochman has reacted with admirable patience.

Jehochman did not ask me to make any statement on his behalf, nor did I inform him that I was preparing this. Durova 12:14, 18 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 User:AndroidCat

Institutional filtering software

Watch the reference link change from "http://www.xenu.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html" to "http://www._vetted_.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html". Strange, and not the sort of reference defacement a human editor would do, but more like some sort of keyword filtering software. It's not the first time that this has happened. I noticed the same thing in at least one edit by User:Nuview a year ago, who also used a CofS IP address. (Couldn't dig up a link for it, sorry.) I mentioned it in the talk page, but didn't get a response. As I pointed out, this sort of damage to articles can be hard to spot.

Misrepresentation of sources

In two articles COFS badly misrepresented a reference..

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

{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.