Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:18, 8 July 2007

Evidence

Is the Arbcom interested in proof that accounts editing from IP identified by WP:RFCU are also editing under a WP:COI? Anynobody 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding, accounts and IP addresses that originate from a specific organization and edit articles about that organization have a presumptive WP:COI (of course I don't speak for the Committee when I say that). Perhaps the most famous example is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/United States Congress. The way I've handled investigations, mere existence of COI doesn't necesssarily mean violation of the COI guideline. If an organization appoints a specific spokesperson who openly declares the affiliation and posts reliably sourced suggested edits to article talk pages, that's fine with me. Plenty of firms make mistakes in this area when they're new to Misplaced Pages and to some extent that's understandable. Some inappropriate advice has been circulating in the business press that lumps Misplaced Pages together with MySpace and other Web 2.0 venues.

I'm curious whether this case will establish some sharper definition of how WP:AGF and WP:COI dovetail. Yet at this point, since I'm aware of no actual evidence that would establish a reason to challenge the checkuser, it could be helpful if some of the Scientologist editors solicited an official statement from the CoS IT team. Also, if CoS doesn't already have some internal policy on Misplaced Pages editing it would probably be to their benefit to establish one, per User:Jmabel/PR and this article. Durova 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The COI guideline exists to protect Misplaced Pages's reputation as a neutral source of information. As Wikipedian's we have a strong interest in protecting our brand, and we have the right to set whatever policies further our goals. The COI guideline is not only concerned about actual COI, but also apparent COI. Using an organization's proxy server allows the organization to monitor every edit made. Whether we are talking about a religious organization, or in some other instance a business, Misplaced Pages must be concerned that these edits could be influenced by the subject of the article. When edits can be monitored, pressure can be applied to members of the organization to make those edits more favorable. This represents an insidious violation of WP:NPOV that cannot be tolerated. Jehochman 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points, Durova. I think it would be most unwiki to exclude editors based solely on a COI, some people can balance their feelings and the rules. However if a COI appears to have gotten the better of an editor, we should not hesitate to act once sufficient warning/explanations are given.

I was wondering how we are treating the other accounts identified by checkuser like Misou or CSI LA. Should we include evidence about them too? Anynobody 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Jehochman's statement, but we don't know if the IP is indeed a CoS tool, merely an excuse made up by a puppet master, or something else. Personally I'm keeping all options open, but since this arbcom is about only one of the possible socks are we assuming the others are different people? Anynobody 06:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since part of the question at issue here is the validity of the COFS checkuser result, it seems to me that evidence about any of those other accounts is potentially valid. Bear in mind that none of them have edited in a while, so if the case proceeds purely on that basis it might close quickly. I hope to clear my name of some of the accusations that have been made against me recently and I have a hunch that article probation would be a good idea for Scientology-related topics. If any of the named editors on either side of this case have violated policy in relation to this dispute then this would be the place to air the evidence. Of course, as always, that's just my finger to the wind and I have no more access to the Committee's deliberations than any other editor.

What I always advise named parties to do is examine their own actions, assume responsibility for any mistakes, and take corrective steps. In most arbiration cases the participants spend considerable energy identifying each others' faults but little on their own. Arbitration happens because people weren't able to solve their own problems. So I think the best way to handle arbitration is to demonstrate that I can exercise sufficient self-control and don't need any external remedies. Occasionally everyone comes to that realization and the case ends with a handshake, such as here. That's really the best solution when it can be achieved. Durova 07:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just another data point: there is not one IP; there are several IPs that have been used by the same subset of editors. (Three user ids in particular used each of them, and then each has been used by a few different editors.) --jpgordon 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• But they all resolve to the CoS, right? Without knowing the ins and outs of their network and gateway configuration, what assumptions do you think should be made? As regards the one IP that was blocked briefly I was informed by e-mail (in response to a question I raised on-wiki) that it is used by many Scientologists worldwide including non-staff volunteers in offices of groups like CCHR. That is just one IP. Given that and the conditions that I mention on the evidence page, I think the only assumption that can be made when we note someone editing from a CoS IP is that they likely are a Scientologist in good standing with their church. Like me or any number of actual and potential editors here. That is about it. Certainly no slam-dunk COI. Unless someone thinks that I have a COI in editing here? Anyone think that? --Justanother 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, they do not all resolve to CoS. One does. --jpgordon 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, don't you think that since pretty much the entirety of this arbitration is about those IP's, that you should reveal at least what firm and location they resolve to? If not the IPs themselves. How can we evaluate what, if any, COI and/or puppetry issue(s) exist without that information because based simply on the CoS gateway, I do not think we can. Too many variables. --Justanother 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should; it's something we get to figure out as we work on this case. At the moment, I'm still holding it close to my chest in the name of checkuser confidentiality, and researching; it's possible that the addresses have already been revealed somewhere on Misplaced Pages, but I'm not sure. --jpgordon 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• (EC) "at least what firm and location they resolve to and which editors used which", I should say. And I know that you'all will decide but we are the ones asked to present evidence. So if you are the jury, then we are the attorneys, and we need sufficient information in order to present adequate evidence. --Justanother 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, for your acting as an "attorney" for the cofs I suggest you reread the reason why this arbitration is being conducted. All the information is there.--Fahrenheit451 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

F451, why are you trying to reflect or divert attention upon who I am or what I am doing? I am doing what I assume an interested party is supposed to do - presenting evidence and opinion that I believe should be considered. Do you have a problem with that? Why? F451, if it is your intention to be disruptive, I suggest that you refrain. --Justanother 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I caution you about violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Please stop falsely accusing and being disruptive of this arbitration. I wonder if you are accusing me of exactly what YOU are attempting to do.--Fahrenheit451 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is the Fahrenheit451 I've come to know. Please do us all a favor and knock off the "bait and bitch". It is very obvious. Guys like you, F451, are the reason that the atmosphere in the Scientology articles is as poisonous as it is. Thanks for joining us and providing some authenticity. --Justanother 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, this page is for discussion of the arbitration regarding your organization's use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I looks to me like you may be attempting to steer this discussion off-course by your personal attacks, incivility, and lack of good faith. I am warning you again, knock off it off.--Fahrenheit451 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I request that the ArbCom read my statements of evidence here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Evidence. Please bear in mind that the cofs is not a hospitality corporation.--Fahrenheit451 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that CofS includes a hospitality operation. If we saw a stream of POV-type edits to Hilton Hotels coming from an IP address that resolved to Hilton, that would definitely raise suspicions of COI. I fully agree with Justanother that the network location alone does not prove a COI violation. However, the network location plus the nature of the edits, plus other factors indicative of COI tend to create a very strong case. The resolution is for editors using the CoS network to realize that they need to be very careful to observe Misplaced Pages's content policies, including WP:NPOV, and that they need to avoid edit warring, lest their behavior reflect poorly on the CoS. Perhaps the CoS should establish policies and conduct user training to educate their people about best practices for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 20:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that we are getting a bit of a handle on it. The difference between the Hilton example and here is that the Hilton population is heterogeneous and any consistent POV would be an anomaly worth investigating. I can just about guarantee that every single Scientologist is dismayed at what is presented here. The fact is that, to an incredible degree, the Scientology series articles were written by highly POV anti-Scientologists that have little understanding of what Scientology is or how it is practiced; they only have knowledge of biased misrepresentations of Scientology. There are exceptions to that but that is the norm. What that means is that when someone that knows Scientology and holds it in good regard sees these articles it can be a bit overwhelming. The overwhelming temptation is to remove lies and misrepresentations. Imagine how you would feel, Jehochman, if, for example, the entire article on SEO was written by critics of SEO and it presents SEO as a scam perpetrated by a bunch of scammers and that everyone that was involved in SEO was a criminal. In other words it took valid criticism, blew it out of proportion, and made that the entirety of the subject. You might be tempted to get right in there and moderate the misrepresentation. But what if every time you tried you found embedded POV editors instantly reverted you. You might get frustrated and you might "get in trouble". So when you say "the nature of the edits" I say that we cannot simply say that in an off-the-cuff fashion (not accusing you of that) but that we need to look at the individual edits and make a judgement as to whether they, on a one-by-basis and taken collectively, are indicative of blatent COI or are they good-faith edits in accordance with policy or are they something in-between. --Justanother 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, it is not a fact and there is no evidence that scientology series articles have been written by "highly POV anti-scientologists". That is your opinion. Also, you quote, "I can just about guarantee that every single Scientologist is dismayed at what is presented here." again is not based on surveys or studies, but your opinion solely. I see little substance to your defenses of the repeated violations of Misplaced Pages policy by users from the Church of Scientology International proxy. A corporation is a single entity that needs to be addressed as a single user.--Fahrenheit451 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For those that are not as familiar with the Scientology series articles and who wrote them as Mr. 451 is, I offer this gloat by über-critic Dave Touretzky:

"Misplaced Pages has evolved into a huge, glowing mass of entheta. An entheta-palooza!"

Entheta mean "enturbulated theta" and that means lies, upsetting lies (theta being "truth" and enturbulated meaning "screwed up"). A few Scientology-series regulars are mentioned and acknowledged for their "good work" but I will not repeat their usernames here. This is relevant to illustrate just what we are dealing with in the Scientology-series articles; a clique of off-wiki critics that have, until fairly recently, held the series in a strangle hold, running "bait and block" on any Scientologist that showed up and creating such a poisonous atmosphere over there that neutral editors and admins steer it a wide berth. That has changed and, hopefully, this action will help with the continued change over there to a place where people of all opinions can work together in something approaching harmony. --Justanother 01:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Justanother. One person, a David Touretzky, makes a comment that happens to be favorable to how the cofs wants current Misplaced Pages articles portrayed and you state it as if it were fact. On the other hand, you don't quote the negative statements Touretzky makes about scientology and you label him an über-critic. The cofs does not want his other statements believed, but this particular one is emphasized because it forwards the OSA party line. What a remarkable contrast: An über-critic who can speaks truth when you want it to be true, and lies when you want it to be a lie. Do you think your above statements contradict your below statements, "I, personally, hold Misplaced Pages policy in the highest esteem and consider it an inspired guide and an example of the best of 'group wisdom'"?--Fahrenheit451 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what I think, we've been nicely asked by jpgordon to refrain so I will refrain from saying what I think and will let your behavior here speak for itself. --Justanother 05:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, then I will tell that your cited statements are contradicting. That means one or both are false. That means you are not being truthful. That behavior of yours is quite clear.--Fahrenheit451 03:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, the situation with the Search engine optimization article was to a lesser degree what you describe. Over a long period of time the article was improved, featured, and it even ran on the main page yesterday. This was all done without edit warring, incivility, or Arbcom litigation. My fellows within the SEO community laughed at my naive efforts to work within the system, but I had the last laugh.

Of course, SEO has a huge impact on this dispute because these Scientology articles rank first or second in Google, so they have a tremendous impact on Scientology's public image. You might consider reading an essay I started, WP:SEO, for tips on effective reputation management.

You need to work within Misplaced Pages policy to resolve NPOV problems. I agree with you that the Scientology articles should be inspected for anti-Scientology bias. Any problems should be fixed. At the same time, I oppose COI editing, fighting POV pushing with more POV pushing, and confronting incivility with more incivility. You'll notice that every comment I make within this case includes advice for what the parties can do to make things better. Nobody needs to be blocked or banned as a result of this case if each party examines their own actions and figures our how to be more effective. Jehochman 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I, personally, hold Misplaced Pages policy in the highest esteem and consider it an inspired guide and an example of the best of "group wisdom". I repeatedly have said that all the Scientologists need do to improve the situation is insist that the articles conform to policy. However, I would not characterize COFS' editing as "COI editing, fighting POV pushing with more POV pushing, and confronting incivility with more incivility" without examining the edits he was making and the opposition that he was encountering. Making such generalities, that may not be directed at COFS but will likely be taken as such, without providing diffs to back up these accusations is not in the best interests of a fair and unbiased hearing here. --Justanother 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, were you including the two instances where COFS vandalized my user page? Also, you state that you "hold Misplaced Pages policy in the highest esteem". So, please explain this item on your discussion page: --Fahrenheit451 23:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we look at the "vandalized my user page" issue we will see that you were baiting COFS with your fake "auditing" and with holding the exchange up to scorn on your user page. All COFS did was add the rest of the context to what you had already put on your user page. As far as your second "point", sorry, I won't play. Nor will I discuss your first "point" further with you either (I will be happy to explain it to others), the context is clear for any neutral editor to see. --Justanother 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Guys, get a room. Not this one. --jpgordon 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, Hi. I apologize for Justanother's "spirited exuberance" and sensitivity to answering questions. Justanother needs to apply WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to these discussions.--Fahrenheit451 00:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The above by Mr. 451 speaks more eloquently for itself than anything I could say. Thank you. --Justanother 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, indeed, Justanother.--Fahrenheit451 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, I want to be as accurate as I can when describing the WP:RFCU results. Is this table representative of them:

Account	IP 1	IP 2	IP 3	IP 4	IP 5	IP 6
COFS	-	x	-	x	-	x
CSI LA	x	x	-	-	x	x
Misou	-	x	x	-	-	x
Other 1	-	x	-	-	-	x
Other 2	x	x	-	-	-	x

I know you can't give specifics of course, but I feel like I'm unintentionally misrepresenting the situation when I describe it. Anynobody 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's something like that (actually, quite close). Thanks for suggesting the format -- I'll build such a thing and fill it in. --jpgordon 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I suggest that this table be placed on the evidence page.--Fahrenheit451 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Fahrenheit451. I think it sums up the situation in a more NPOV way than a paragraph describing it would. However this table is just a general illustration for the talk page, so I'll include it when jpgordon has modified it.

Thank you for helping clarify this. jpgordon I really appreciate it. Anynobody 05:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While the userid has been absent from editing for almost a year, I suspect you'll find that Nuview fits on that IP chart in the 205.227.165/24 range. AndroidCat 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing another open arbcom case?

I noticed some very similar aspects involved in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal, is there a restriction on citing it as another situation where WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:DE intersected for similar reasons? (I don't want to mess up either case so I felt it would be best to ask before posting my observations.) Anynobody 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a response I'm assuming it's ok to cite other open cases. Anynobody 21:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss that case if you want, although of course the arbitrators will judge each situation on its own merits. Newyorkbrad 21:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Good deal, I don't want to influence the other case; just point out that WP:COI issues aren't restricted to Scientology articles but they cause similar problems. Anynobody 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the arbitrators already know that :) , but feel free to develop your arguments. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume they do too, but assumption can be a mistake. Besides others may read this someday and may not know, so even if the arbitrators already know I won't be wasting my time :) Anynobody 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pasted Su-Jada comments from Evidence page

Response to Jehochman

Where I can understand what these editors are voicing, you can hardly call this a reason for prohibiting the person from editing. So, he's proud of being a Scientologist. Okay. Tilman is a frequent editor of Scientology-related topics, and he has very strong views on Scientology and no one is saying he should not be allowed to edit. If we are going to say those who are pro-Scientology and Scientologists should not be allowed to edit wouldn't we also have to say those with a strong view against Scientology not be allowed to edit? I know I diverge a bit from the sockpuppet/meatpuppet idea, but saying all Scientologists are simply meatpuppets -- that's pretty outragreous, don't you think?Su-Jada 03:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is stating that. You are making that interpretation for yourself.--Fahrenheit451 03:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that every Scientologist who follows Misplaced Pages's rules should be allowed to edit. Jehochman 03:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The above summary blurs several important distinctions. No one proposes that all Scientologists in the world are meatpuppets or that an individual's private views on Scientology (either pro- or anti-) constitutes reason in itself to impose a topic ban. Here we have an individual who has violated several site guidelines and policies. Multiple user blocks have failed to correct the problems and an adverse checkuser result has come in. I would like to see balanced coverage of Scientology on Misplaced Pages and for precisely that reason I proposed a mild corrective remedy in a situation where I could have imposed a lengthy userblock that probably would have withstood review.

The defenders of Scientology are welcome to present evidence of policy violations by Scientology opponents and to request remedies. In my opinion article parole may be a very good thing for this topic - that's helped a similar impasse at Waldorf education and Anthroposophy. I hope the Committee can convey what Jehochman and I have been expressing: that there are acceptable white hat methods for Scientologists and CoS to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Yet when editors consistently refuse to abide by site standards or insist upon construing those standards as something other than what they actually are, eventually Misplaced Pages imposes external remedies. Durova 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to invite discussion of any evidence which can be found to show an anti-Scientology POV among the involved editors. A WP:COI does go both ways. Anynobody 06:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Response to Fubar Obfusco

I am not sure what the etiquette is in arbitration and if it is incorrect for me to comment on others communications, please will someone let me know the correct way to respond? However I felt compelled to state my point of view on some of these items, and am doing so. I would be happy to edit them to make them conform to proper usage if this is not the normal way to do so. With all due respect to the person who posted this item, Operation Freakout occurred more than 30 years ago and was the product of renegade members of a since-disbanded office of the Church of Scientology called the Guardian Office. As to abuses of the Internet by Scientologists, most of what you are writing about took place in or before the early days of the worldwide web, and I'm sure if you asked Scientologists what they think of people who put up sites that promote they are there to get people out of Scientology they would feel those actions are pretty abusive too. But, be that as it may, it is outrageous to suggest that Scientologists be denied their freedom of speech and expression in Misplaced Pages because they are Scientologists! Su-Jada 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian Office was disbanded and replaced with the Office of Special Affairs. Many of the key people who were in the GO, including the Commanding Officer, Mike Rinder are in OSA. The differences are that OSA has no Finance Bureau and a different name. As far as internet abuses from the cofs, as we have witnessed here in Misplaced Pages, such things still occur. Looks like the cofs is slow to learn.--Fahrenheit451 03:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration addresses user conduct issues rather than content disputes. To the extent that issues related to this matter constitute violations of Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, please present page diffs as evidence. For example, has someone consistently flouted Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not in article space regarding this subtopic? A summary with relevant examples could be valuable at arbitration. Durova 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be considered fishing to submit WP:RFCUs on

Justanother and Bravehartbear, I'm wondering if they have used either Scientology IP, or perhaps another one. Anynobody 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of sheer curosity? That would be a good definition for fishing, yes.

Anynobody, the committee members are quite capable of checking (and I'm sure they already have), but your concern is noted. However, given that you already know where Bravehartbear edits from, releasing information about Justanother's logins could be giving you personal information about his location (if they intersected with COFS or Braveheartbear) and that would be unacceptable. Peace.Lsi john 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon did this edit mean there are no other accounts involved in this case that have used those IPs?

To address concerns about personal information being released, this is not what the WP:RFCU process does. Misplaced Pages has strict privacy policies, in fact the entire Wikimedia organization uses them, see the Privacy policy for more information. Lsi john, having submitted a successful WP:RFCU request in the past, I assure you there is more than curiosity behind my original question. Anynobody 22:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, think about it. I've obviously checked COFS et al, and recently. Don't you think I'd have raised my hand and said, "Excuse me, Mr. Justanother and/or Mr. Braveheartbear, something seems a bit improper here"? (I assume we don't get to consider Earthlink a Scientology operation anymore...) (After conflict) If there were other accounts in this case who had edited on those IPs, within the limited timeframe checkuser is useful for, I'd have screeched like a banshee. --jpgordon 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't know if you were allowed to access checkuser without someone making a request for you to. Anynobody 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can. But somebody did ask us to. That's what got this whole thing started. --jpgordon 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS didn't mention Justanother and no confirmation was given about Bravehartbear . Anynobody 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. But the way checkuser works is that first we find out what IPs an editor has been using, and then we find out what other editors have been using those IPs. We don't get to say "show me what if any IPs the following editors have in common", though that would a convenient tool. But: RFCU is just a convenience; I'd venture that more checkuser runs are made without an RFCU posting than otherwise. Also, RFCU isn't used for cases currently in arbitration. And you can pretty much assume that on an arbcom case with real or accused sockpuppetry, we do a lot of checking. --jpgordon 22:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, Not directly related to this case, but in general, do you wait until the end of arbitration to act on your findings? i.e. if you were to find 7 socks of a user, would you announce that up front, or wait until everyone was finished presenting? (7 being an arbitrary number greater than none). Peace.Lsi john 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to mention that on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration? If something had been said about arbitrators doing their own research I'd of assumed neither editor was using the IPs in question. Anynobody 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you assume that? I don't. What I assume is that if the arbitrators felt it was relevant to this case, and didn't violate privacy, and felt WE needed to know, they would have told us. I assume nothing further from lack of information.

And, can we assume as a neutral editor you will also run your % graphs on the anti-scientologist editors? Giving us percentages on pro-editors doesn't give us much of a basis to use your graph. Peace.Lsi john 23:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And, as a neutral editor, this post seems a bit non-neutral. Peace.Lsi john 23:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)