Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:14, 28 June 2007

Template:Arbcom-talk

• ]

Recent spamming

Time to contact the ISP methinks. I've checked out five of the IPs used and all return Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Some stupidity between the socialist web sites workforall.org and workforall.net. I don't understand why the .net guy keeps spamming his request here. Does he think that the 50 times it has been removed were all accidents, and the case will suddenly be accepted on the 51st attempt? Bottom line (since he is probably reading this) is the following:

1. The Arbitration committee does not decide content issues, only serious editor conduct problems.
2. The removal of WorkForAll.net links is an editorial decision made by multiple editors and there is no evidence that policies were violated.
3. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. If you think the decision to remove the links was wrong, you should start with a request for comment to solicit the views of additional editors.
4. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle to promote private web sites. The fact that some articles have inappropriate links to some web sites is a reason to find and remove them, not to add more ("Other crap exists so mine should too" is not an acceptable argument here).
5. If you persist, you will be reverted and blocked. You are way outnumbered by the recent changes patrol, by the way. If necessary, we can block your entire ISP, which is bound to make them take notice of you. So please stop. Thatcher131 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's taken to vandalizing the talk pages of users who remove his "request". He got me and Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this morning (Thanks to Lectonar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for cleaning it up!). Adam 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reproteced the page again today with an expiry of 2 weeks. Seems he reposted as soon as the expiry went away last time. Hope I wasn't out of line in doing this. ^demon 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Might be time to start writing that email to Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He can reset his IP quite easily it seems. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks seems like a long time. I wonder if we should put a notice on the page advising users to contact a clerk for help. On the other hand, I have never seen a legitimate request filed by an IP editor. Hmmm. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if an IP editor did have a legitimate request (ie: they know enough about policy to know what would be appropriate), they would know enough to ask on this page or a clerk for help. ^demon 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember to restore move=sysop permanently every time; protects w/ expiration dates potentially leave pages vulnerable to attacks. - Penwhale | 09:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Thatcher seems to be on the money, I must say that I have seen some fairly good IP statements on proposed cases. That note may not be astray. Daniel 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova

Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? "Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available." You are implying that I said what, exactly? --Justanother 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's customary at RFAR to respond to another editor's statement by appending one's own. The particular comment of yours that comment responded to is I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I'd already recommended DR repeatedly before opening this request. Unfortunately for this situation, user conduct WP:RFC would be difficult to pursue with this many editors and mediation requires the consent of all parties. Durova 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Druova, that makes your method a self-fulfilling prophesy. You say it's too many people for an RfC, I disagree. I doubt that I would even be involved in an RfC on COFS. And, I don't see any reason for Justanother to be involved in an RfC on COFS either. My only reason for involvement was to try and stop the high speed railroading witch hunt that was out to HANG those people that have tried our patience long enough. The entire situation was based on multiple repeated usage of prior one-sided 'reports' of suspicion and innuendo. Anyone who looks at it fairly, will see that COFS does not have a horrible block log. COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks were for 'suspicion' and were unblocked. COFS has not been given a fair due-process. From what I can tell, COFS doesn't even edit all that much.

Jehochman clearly doesn't like those people (Scientologists). And, because your apprentice fast tracked it out of COIN, where it belonged, and into CSN where it didn't belong, and then because you two (reinforced by each other's posts) effectively tag-teamed COFS and ram rodded your own personal consensus, you forced me to be involved, in order to try to slow things down and to try to inject reason. But it was clearly too late, as you had already made up your mind. And, in the end, you 'declared' a non-existent 'consensus' for your ruling, and requested another admin on AN/I close the ticket and bless your decree. I don't think it was intentional, I think you just got caught up in your own personal views, the two of you reinforced each other, and it got out of control. (Note: your indef block of Bus stop, where numerous editors posted on your talkpage in surprise of your drastic measures. Bus stop may need a community ban, but he hasn't had proper WP:DR either. You took that from him.)

I believe that, as a team, either you or Jehochman should have recused yourselves from commenting. Based on your own remarks on your talkpage, you are clearly very proud of your 'personally trained wiki-sleuths'. It makes perfect sense that Jehochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack. It also explains his attack on me (defending you) with his AN/I post, after I did everything he asked me to do. Whether or not you technically violated any wiki-rules or policy, or whether it technically qualified as anything like meat puppets, I don't know. But it certainly was a bit unethical from my perspective.

Smee and Anynobody have been a driving force against COFS for POV reasons, from the beginning. They continue to throw out the same 'sock puppet check' (because that is all they really have). And what they don't point out is that, during their 'witch hunt', an admin finally told them to knock off the fishing, when they finally went too far and added me to the list. Then you and Jehochman (presumably duped by the numerous 'reports') effectively team up with them and rammed this through. (Granted they did not arrive in this situation at the beginning, but they have been involved in the campaign from the beginning, and they have certainly jumped in and proudly displayed their socks check and argued for banning).

There isn't any evidence of misconduct that I saw presented. There is only evidence of reports of suspicion, filed time and again, for the most part by anti-Scientologists. If you honestly take time to read through it, taking yours and Jehochman's comments out, there is not a lot left. If you two were truly NEUTRAL, then why did you dominate the conversation? Why did Jehochman produce '2 fresh diffs' (25 hours old and 10 hours apart) to justify your views of warring? A neutral admin, with no 'adjenda', would have listened to the case being presented and then ruled. Jehochman steered it to the CSN, and then both you and Jehochman took very active roles in prosecuting the case. And THAT is why I got involved. There was no evidence of a neutral party. those people have tried our patience long enough.

What, exactly, is the question of the dispute?

1. COI? then it should have been on COIN. How strict a definition of COI are we going to apply to these articles? And, are we willing to apply it across the board evenly to both sides?
2. Disruption? There is no evidence of disruption.
3. POV? Scientology articles are full of pov editors on both sides.

I've said it twice before and I'll repeat it here: If we are going to take a bite of the apple, we better be prepared to eat the whole damned apple. The tension over the Scientology articles won't be resolved by banning the editors from either side, who aggressively remove POV, unless our goal is to allow the Scientology articles to be written POV.

And the really funny part about all this, if there is a funny part, is that I have unanswered concerns about COFS too. You called me a defender, which I find funny. Because not once have I defended a single action of COFS. My efforts have been to slow things down, get them into the correct venue, and make sure that we don't mis-convict someone. You concluded that means I am guilty of some unidentified off-line collusion, and then tied an apology to some action on my part to 'apologize to your apprentice'. And you accused me of being a long-term vandal with a new account, who will be 'discovered' by thorough investigation by your sleuths. (Simply because I voiced firm opposition to you?) Tag-team attack COFS, Tag-team defend each other.

Durova, we got off to a bad start, and for that I'm sorry. You have said this is a hobby for you, and you clearly enjoy the investigations and banning. But the people here are real. They are not simply a hobby. The views being expressed in these articles are real and they stir up very strong emotional and powerful feelings. Scientology is a religion. It isn't mine, but it is a religion. Some of the pro-Scientologists are fanatics, AND some of the anti-Scientologists are fanatics. Some aren't fanatics at all, but are simply here to defend their religion against attack and some are here to attack that religion (though they may not accept that it is a religion). When someone defends against a fanatic, their actions may seem extreme. Upon reflection, perhaps that's why my actions seemed extreme to you?

Personally, I believe you got a bit carried away here. I think you might want to consider taking a break from the CSN board, and reflect on what you want to contribute to wikipedia, and how that can and does impact real lives. Maybe even take a short break from 'training sleuths' and look at your motivation for doing it.

I don't know what the future will bring. But I do know that I hope it brings a peaceful resolution to this entire situation, so that we can return to writing articles. After all, that is the reason for wikipedia. Peace.Lsi john 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) OK on the "discussion" then. Durova, you misunderstand my comment, I fear. I said that I (as in me) was not looking for any help or WP:DR as regards your actions as they relate to you as an editor or as an admin. Meaning that I was not doing a "Bad Durova". I think you made an error and I "called" you on the error. That is it. I say you made an error, you likely feel that you did not. Had the close of the CSN incident just been the end of the inappropriate action against COFS then that would have been the end of my problem with your error; "no harm, no foul". Now I think that you are perpetuating your error. You no doubt feel that you are not. Again, if this Arb does not fly then "no harm, no foul". I would hope that by then, error or no error on your part, you move on. But I was not (and am not) looking to open WP:DR on what I perceive as an error. I AGFed that you were acting in good faith. I did not think that you were acting correctly but I assumed that you were acting in good faith. You misinterpreted my statement to mean that "alternative methods of resolution are not available" to you? To you, not to me? That you had no other means to take up some objection that you have with me? It must be with me because I have no say over what remedies are available as regards another and this case is about COFS, you don't need my blessing for anything about her. You know that. You could have opened a MedCab or started a User RfC or just taken the COI discussion back to COIN like I recommended time and again. So why are you concerned over something I said about my worries or lack of them? Why are you so quick to make my words so important that they motivate you to start an Arb over more appropriate remedies (wish that you had made my words more important a bit earlier.) Did you misinterprete my statement to justify your own ends, to justify you bringing this here instead of just letting it go (AGF well running a bit dry now). I suspect that this is not about COFS. I suspect that you are seeking vindication. Again, at the expense of COFS. --Justanother 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add briefly *gasp* that I too think you were acting in Good Faith (as evidenced by the wiki-link in my above post). I think both of you made some bad-faith comments and decisions, but I believe overall you have good intentions.

I, too, after the CSN closed, had hoped the matter would be 'returned to a lower DR level', and was saddened to see you (a supposedly uninvolved admin) escalate the situation to Arbcom for resolution. Like Justanother, it seems to me that you brought this here for vindication. I would request that you please take time to reflect on that possibility, and if it has any ring of truth for you, consider withdrawing the Arbcom request. Peace.Lsi john 19:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a few additional reasons why arbitration seems like the appropriate venue for this dispute. User conduct RFC is best suited to examine the conduct of one or two editors. Until I saw El C's closure I had considered possibly two RFCs: one on COFS and, if you prefer, one on myself. Yet that solution would be ill-suited for you to present evidence against anti-Scientology editors - and by that I mean users who edit Scientology articles, which to the best of my knowledge neither I nor Jechochman have done. Mediation is usually better at addressing multi-sided disputes, but it only works when all parties are willing and the only type of mediation (WP:CEM) that addresses disputes where policy issues dovetail with content disagreements does not handle multi-sided cases where sockpuppetry is an issue. Even if an exception were made, it seemed implausible that either of you would accept that venue because I founded CEM and its only other mediator besides myself is one of my admin coaching trainees.

Arbitration offers you several advantages. A good part of your argument hinges upon a dispute with the checkuser result on COFS: the Committee is better suited than I am to reexamine that (rank and file sysops generally trust the accuracy of such reports). Arbitration also offers you the chance to present solid evidence against anyone involved whom you think has acted inappropriately and if my list of involved parties is incomplete you may ask the clerk to expand it. The Committee also has a unique ability to implement article parole, which could help stabilize and improve things at Scientology. For an example of how that works see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education.

If part of your reticence to arbitrate involves concerns about prominent Google indexing, I understand. The Committee has occasionally accepted requests to hear cases confidentially via e-mail. You could ask for that here - I don't know whether the request would be granted, but I'd voice no objection. Also I'm willing to withdraw the request for arbitration if all three of you (Lsi john, Justanother, and COFS) enter WP:ADOPT and accept a one month community topic ban on COFS. Durova 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whom you are even talking to in most of that.

1. I have no desire to RfC you. I think you made some judgment errors, end of story. Only by pushing it are you compounding your errors. I've repeatedly told you that I have no desire to engage in any of these litigious processes. Twice now Ive been forced to. Once by Jehochman, and now again by you. Personally, I would be thrilled if you would simply reflect on the possibility that my observations are valid. Maybe I'm not 100% right. Maybe I'm only 10% right.. ... maybe?
2. I have no desire to RfC Anti-Scientology editors I've have more than sufficient cause to file complaints against Smee if that had been my goal or desire. I suspect I have enough so called 'evidence' to have Smee removed from wikipedia, so? There are plenty of people I could ask for help.. even you.. if thats where I wanted to go. I don't want to go that route.
3. I have no desire to RfC Pro-Scientology editors. (Seeing a pattern here?) I'm quite capable of doing research, finding diffs and establishing patterns... so? that won't resolve anything at all. The only people who would really care, would be those who have an interest in adminship. The rest would simply find proxies, and come back as new users, and begin again. You think it must be resolved by force, I think it can be resolve by some level of cooperation. And, at least the way it is now, we know who is who... sort of.
   If I wanted to pursue DR attacks on people, this would have been the perfect opportunity to try to jump past all the normal WP:DR and go after Smee. But that would not have been appropriate. Smee may be a pov-spa account, but even Smee deserves due-process.
4. If you haven't edited Scientology articles, and I have edited virtually no Scientology articles, and to my knowledge we have not edited any other articles together, why do you keep suggesting that we should be in mediation with/against each other? Do we have a problem that I'm unaware of? I've expressed my concerns about you (above). Either you accept them, or you 'consider the possibility' that some of it may have validity, or you dismiss my objections completely. IMO the first two would be mature responses, the last would not, as even the second leaves the possibility for rejection 'after consideration'. Either way, once the COFS arb situation is resolved, we go our separate ways, no harm done (presumably). I certainly have no desire to waste time filing RfC's against you. I don't even know you. I don't have much respect for the way you and Jehochman have handled this situation, but that certainly isn't sufficient for an RfC.
5. Assuming I would reject WP:CEM simply because you helped found it.. is.. well..it is what it is. And it shows that you know nothing about me at all. Actually, no offense, but you are giving yourself too much importance in my decision making.
6. Arbitration doesn't offer me any advantages here. I'm not here to defend COFS. I'm here to make sure the process isn't hijacked (even in good-faith). And I'm here to make sure someone doesn't get lynched. How many times do I have to say that before you hear it? I have questions about COFS, but they certainly don't need to be answered here, at least not yet.
7. socks check: The IP that I saw in some post for COFS, was a Scientology address. Reportedly it is a church proxy. If so, then there is no way to know how many users are editing from that location. And there is no way to know which ones are socks of each other. Unless you have administrative access to the network, you can only 'guess' and 'ponder' whether two people are really one. And that pretty much craps all over the AGF guideline.
   So moving along, have there been any documented violations of abuse from that proxy address? Has COFS been involved in vote stacking? Has COFS made any edits which are clearly violations of a policy and not just subjective opinion? If not.. move along.. nothing to see here.. these are not the droids you are looking for..let them pass... (from starwars).
8. Google indexing - I'm lost. What is google indexing and how does it apply to COFS / COI / SOCKS? If it applies to anything else, then it is not relevant here.

Durova, judging by the number of times you've tried to get me to pursue litigation here, you clearly enjoy being involved in the litigation process, and bless you for your contributions. Truly. And, what I experience from you is someone who got a bit overzealous and got caught up in the excitement of 'fresh meat' and the two of you fed off of each other with 'similar' posts, and the situation escalated out of control. I think you did it in good faith, but even good faith efforts can go badly.

This case shouldn't be here. It should be in an RfC. COFS could even open one on him/her self. Opponents of COFS could have done this all by themselves. You did not need to open this arbcom. You were not involved. So, I suggest that you ask yourself, WHY you felt it was necessary for YOU to open this by YOURSELF? I truly believe if you honestly reflect on that question, you will see the situation as others here see it is. Q:Why was Durova the only/best person who could bring a successful conclusion to this situation by opening an arbcom?

As for me going into a mentor program, I perceive that as your hobby again. You appear to attached 'mentorship' onto almost every situation I've seen in the past week. It seems to be another pet project of yours. Never mind that none of this is about me, though you have tried to make it about me. There is nothing that has established a need for my entering a mentor program. Note that I'm not rejecting a mentor, I'm rejecting that you have any grounds to propose it to me.

Your bias clearly shows, when you did not include Smee or Anynobody in the mentorship offer, even though you have seen significant information to suggest their need for it, (eg: Smee's 7 blocks for disruptive editing).

I'll tell you what... If you want to make this about you and me I'll make you a counter-offer: I'll enter a mentor program, if you take a wiki-break from all AN, AN/I and CSN conversations, from training admins, and from participating in significant decisions about blocks and bans for 3 months. Whether or not you leave the COFS at arbcom is irrelevant to that offer, and you don't even have to establish any grounds for me to get a mentor.

No hard feelings here. I still say, lets go edit articles. Peace.Lsi john 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a good chance to clear up the issue of COFS' status once and for all. Is COFS, by virtue of using the CoS for Internet access too close to edit those articles? I don't see any need for bans or blocks to resolve this question. All COFS has to do is come here, and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision. Likewise, John, I hope that you will learn more about Misplaced Pages, because, please don't take this the wrong way, you are a bit of a loose canon. You have tremendous energy and potential. If you would learn more about how this incredibly complex system works, you could be a great asset. Being an admin trainee is essentially the same thing as joining WP:ADOPT in my opinion. Getting a mentor who will teach you is a good thing. Why not if you have the opportunity? Learning is good! I agree with you completely that we should work on creating good and featured articles. As soon as we stop the Scientology edit wars, that article could become a featured article and end up on the home page of Misplaced Pages. (An article I worked on will run on the home page Monday.) This would be a good thing for the Scientologists, I think. I have nothing against them whatsoever. If you look at my interactions with Keith Henson, you'll see that I opposed anti-Scientologist abuses there. Jehochman 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. A Very Very Ironically interesting choice of words on the loose cannon claim, as I used that exact term to describe someone yesterday and again today (Whom I described is the ironic part). It's also ironic that a friend recently told me how much of a mirror I am to others.

My friend, likewise, hopefully you won't take this the wrong way, your edit statistics (much like Durovas) indicate that you are here to work the 'boards' more than improve mainspace articles. And if that is the result of the 'mentorship' programs, then, unless Durova accepts my counter-proposal to take a 3 month wikibreak from her hobby and stay in mainspace, I'll pass on the Mentorship offer for now. I'm not an 'edit-count' guy. But I am a statistics guy.. its not how much, but where and what percentage. Perhaps a way to distinguish us, is that I edit in the trenches and try to prevent your 'boards' from ever seeing the problem. If I (and others like me) are successful, you'll be bored and end up back in mainspace. You've only seen one very small aspect of me, and unfortunately it seems you've jumped to a decision and a conclusion about my need for mentorship (and possibly done some research to prove your conclusion), which is not generally a good thing to do. (Durova certainly seems to have done that, as evidenced by her clear misinterpretation of a talkpage comment I posted). I, on the other hand, AGF that you are simply an over-enthusiastic apprentice with good intentions that needs a little more time to grow and mellow out. Your barcode and wi-fi articles are interesting, as I use both of those daily. Perhaps we'll meet in mainspace some day after all. Peace.Lsi john 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, though I'm probably twice your age, I suspect that we're more alike than you may realize, which may account for your attitude toward me. Peace.Lsi john 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am approximately 40. My picture, though current, makes me look young. My attitude? I generally empathise with you, though occasionally we butt heads. Jehochman 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be be willing to enter WP:ADOPT. Whom do you think I should adopt? I have informally adopted a few editors already. --Justanother 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Durova, if you are truly interested in having this Arb be against "anti-Scientology editors" and you have some evidence to bring then perhaps you should continue. And I may have something I can contribute. Though, again, I do not see much in the way of WP:DR leading to this point and, overall, things have been pretty quiet over at the Scientology series articles lately since Smee backed away from them. --Justanother 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would like more advanced training, consider the admin coaching program instead. Jehochman 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am one of those "don't wanna be an admin" guys. --Justanother 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I think Durova is assuming you have evidence to present. Anynobody 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But I am not the one asking for this action so that does not make sense to me. And since Smee has stopped her WP:TE and the Scientology articles are pretty quiet with both sides working together fairly well then what would we be looking to accomplish? I am not looking to "punish" Smee for her past indiscretions nor would such punishment occur. So long as Smee steers clear of the topics that are problematic for her (or rather for which her involvement is problematic for others and for the project as a whole) then the purpose of an arb is already accomplished; Misplaced Pages "justice" being, I assume, similar to Scientology justice with justice actions only aimed at changing the inappropriate behavior and as soon as that behaviour is stopped then the justice is stopped. --Justanother 11:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Punishment and revenge are completely different animals. As long as the inappropriate behavior has stopped, there is no point to punishing anyone. And, I have no interest in revenge, as retaliation is contraindicated with my philosophy of life.

Justanother, I believe thats the second (or third) time I've seen a similar reference to Scientology. Are you suggesting that wikipedia and Scientology are similar? Peace.Lsi john 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They are similar in that they are both groups with a mission that a large number of people have come together to support; they both are "open-format" in that anyone can join; they both are controlled by an extemely small group of individuals with a larger group of dedicated insiders that enforce the common mission and maintain order; they are not "democratic"; they both hold "reason" in the highest regard although they may disagree on what the limits of "reason" may be (the Misplaced Pages community being overwhelmingly given to ontologies such as materialism or Michael Shermer's version of scientism, IMO, while the metaphysics of Scientology is more dualist - theta/MEST - and mystical); perhaps because of these similarities, they have both evolved amazingly similar methods of dealing with disruptive elements. So in a social sense, there are similarities. Of course there are vast differences and I am not trying to downplay the differences, I simply find the parallels in how the two groups deal with disruptive elements quite interesting given that much of the criticism of Scientology has to do with how it deals with disruptive elements. --Justanother 13:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and because of another similarity; they are both composed of people - by and large well-meaning people but people nonetheless - there are abuses of power and of process. There are also remedies for such abuses although they may grind slowly. And, in both cases, there is little internal recourse if you think the very small controlling group at the top is evil. Sorry. --Justanother 14:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)