Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Scientology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shutterbug (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 20 December 2008 (→Google Scholar cite list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:53, 20 December 2008 by Shutterbug (talk | contribs) (→Google Scholar cite list)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Cross-project evidence

(cross-posting from RFAR talk; arbitrator feedback would be helpful) Durova 18:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Would the Arbitration Committee consider evidence from a sister WMF site if that evidence establishes a pattern of policy abuse?

That's come up at the Scientology RFAR. So before anyone fetches diffs, block histories, etc. let's find out whether this type of material would help the case move forward or not. A few words now from the Arbs could save a lot of time for everyone, since it looks like the RFAR is moving toward acceptance and some editors are mentioning Wikinews. Durova 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The small part in the arbitration policy says:
Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Misplaced Pages edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources.
That is sufficiently ambiguous to require a clarification for this case, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My $0.02 is that implies that Wikimedia sources are considered reliable when making a case related to misconduct on Misplaced Pages. I think it is a given that Misplaced Pages arbitration is a Misplaced Pages remedy; it is not the place of this panel to judge the behavior of Wikipedians on sister projects, those sister projects having their own analogous mechanisms. Therefore any material brought over from sister sites should not be intended to show "actionable" offenses on those sites or even to show a pattern of behavior cross-project but should be limited to supporting a specific allegation of misbehavior on this project. To do elsewise elevates this forum to "Wikimedia arbitration", which it clearly is not. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Justallofthem on the scope in which behavior from other projects should be used as evidence here. --GoodDamon 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Still curious what any of the arbs have to say. Is this sort of evidence worth presenting or not? Durova 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoted directly from Jimbo Wales' user talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey Jimbo, quick question: Should diffs/bans/checkuser details from sister Wikimedia sites be treated as objective evidence in ArbCom cases on en.wiki? Specifically, can such evidence be used to support a disciplinary action on en.wiki? ←Spidern→ 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any simple yes/no answer to that. Behavior in other places can be relevant evidence in ArbCom cases, but often is not. Certainly the idea that one can behave perfectly well here, while engaging in offsite attacks, etc., and the ArbCom can do nothing about it, just doesn't fly. But as well, the idea that a person could be arbitrarily sanctioned at wikipedia for behavior in another forum doesn't fly either. It's a judgment call.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We're not going to investigate violations of other projects' policies, per se, but please feel free to present any evidence that you believe relates to conduct issues on en.wiki. Kirill 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to self-published anti-Scientology sites in Misplaced Pages

Here is a slightly more complete listing of private anti-Scientology sites, and the number of links to them in WP:

Total: 1398 links. Historically, use of such sites has often caused edit wars and bad blood: Jayen466 03:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the use of self-published sources is equally concerning (and must be dealt with) as primary sources, it is important to note that the latter come from a single organization, where the links presented above are all individual entities. ←Spidern→ 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We have several hundred articles on Scientology-related topics. Inclusion of an official site, where one exists, among each article's EL is standard practice. I don't quite see your point about the "individual entities" – all the above sites are very much alike, they link to each other, and are all by various otherwise unpublished individuals. But yes, where Scientology sites are quoted to source article content, that should usually be thrown out, unless a secondary source quotes the same content. Jayen466 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not a mere question of likeness of content. What we have here is opinions represented by multiple websites operated by multiple individuals which have their own convictions and reasoning. It is most concerning that the 30 individual domains mentioned (and literally hundreds more unmentioned) are owned and operated by a single legal organization. The practice of opening a disproportionate number of websites to represent their own opinion deceptively inflates the amount of perceived unbiased information on a subject. As an analogy, imagine that Pfizer opened 30 or more websites which they used to promote their products, presenting them as an objective sources for information on said products. You may say that it is the same of the critical sites to link amongst one another, but at least it can be seen that they are operated by individuals, and not a corporation. ←Spidern→ 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • However, without a clear and unambiguous arbcom remedy addressing this, I daresay it will be an endless and thankless task cleaning up the EL section and keeping it clean. Jayen466 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Spidern, the self-published sources clause of the reliable sources guideline specifically favors article subjects by allowing them to speak on their own behalf. Jayen466 may have identified a legitimate problem. Jayen, do you have information on how many of those links are used as inline citations v. how many in external links sections? And this averages out to how many links per article? I'm uncertain whether this matter falls within the scope of this arbitration because the Committee has traditionally been resistant to rule on content issues. Might be more of a matter for the community to discuss re: the external linking policy, but I suppose it can't hurt to query the arbs here. Regarding attempted inline citations to unreliable sources in articles, I'd be glad to help extract those myself. Normally I don't edit this subject, but have done quite a bit of bad-citation-extraction from music articles. That much should be uncontroversial and useful, but I'd defer to the consensus of more knowledgeable editors about the rest. Best regards, Durova 04:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am and always have been in favor of getting rid of the self-published sites Jayen466 lists, and I don't think anyone currently involved in this arbitration is in favor of keeping them. None of them are reliable sources, in my opinion, and much of the material cited to them is available in much better sources. But seriously, isn't sorting out reliability what WP:RS/N is for? Does this really belong in arbitration if it hasn't even gone to that noticeboard yet? --GoodDamon 05:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Following up: I've gone through the first 100 instances of xenu.net external links. It's cause for concern although not quite as alarming as I'd feared at first. The majority of these links appeared on talk pages and noticeboards rather than in articlespace, and in a few instances these were arguably legit self-published links (for the articles about the site and its founder). I've decided to include only articles where the site was used as an inline citation, as opposed to the external links section. Whether or not this would be an acceptable external link is a different discussion The 13 remaining pages included several high level articles. Would like to discuss this with other editors before proceeding. Durova 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Suppose this needs to be said: removing the link is obvious enough, but what to do about the statement a link tries to support? Pin a fact tag onto it or remove? Mention what at talk? At 1950s pop song articles it's usually good enough to leave the statement in place unless it's obvious vandalism, and pin an unreferenced tag on the article if none of its citations were valid. This topic is controversial, so seeking recommendations. Durova 05:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever anyone comes up with, it's likely to piss someone else off. I'm of the opinion that fact tags should only stay briefly on any controversial statement, unless its one that's widely accepted as true. Anything else should come off the page. To avoid angering as many people as possible, perhaps a system of sandboxes for content lacking in good references to give people the opportunity to find those references? --GoodDamon 05:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
That is an issue to which there is not always a clear answer; it depends very much on the situation. In every possible case when removing primary sources from Scientology-related articles, I attempted to preserve the original content being referenced should the proper citations appear. I believe this to be the most constructive way of doing things, considering that you are making use of the prose refined by editors before you. If content was too outrageous or irrelevant to keep on the article, I pasted the contents to talk pages in order to preserve all work, and in some cases removed the content altogether. The process of deciding upon what is likely to be sourced and what will not be is subjective, and a judgment call for whoever is making the edit. That being said, monitor the citations and if a sufficient time period passes and there is no sign that any citation can be found (and you can't find one yourself), then remove the statement. Just remember, however, that there is no true deadline (except for all WP:BLP material, of course). ←Spidern→ 05:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks like this is a worthwhile undertaking. Anyone want to create a subpage for review of individual articles? I lack the background to tell what's reasonable or unreasonable in terms of content, but would gladly help stock a page with material for review. Should speed matters up a bit. Durova 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar cite list

Operation Clambake - Google Scholar AndroidCat (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This confirmed xenu.net being an attack site. It makes no attempt to hide that it is run by a private individual whose purpose is to gather and spread anti-scientology arguments. His site is as bad as a citation source as any other private single-track minded website. Only when it comes to Scientology some special measure seems to be applied. Shutterbug (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your help with this, Durova. Looking back through the edit histories, you can see how use of these sites, or particular statements sourced to them, has time and time again caused personal friction, edit wars and so forth. The examples I gave above are typical ( ). Usually, the anti-Scientologists have formed majorities and won these battles. More edit wars have been fought over the inclusion of anti-Scientologist sites than over the exclusion of Scientology sites.

I think if we could just address this issue, a lot of our work would already be done, and there would be a clear path ahead for how people could work together to make these articles better – researching published literature, rather than the readily-available websites. There needs to be a clear commitment from both sides to strive for the best sources, and a means to get newbies on board, who will come into these articles on a daily basis, eager to include the tidbit they have just read on Lermanet or Operation Clambake.

For an example of inappropriate use of primary sources/private websites in a main article, see Scientology#Celebrities. Almost all the second paragraph in this section is sourced to an affidavit on whyaretheydead.net. No evidence that this is mentioned in any secondary source, yet we have a whole paragraph based on it, in our main article on Scientology, and it's about ploughing a field (!). This paragraph has been there, without interruption, since autumn 2007. That, along with the external links presently given in the Scientology article, is clear evidence of (1) the existing balance of editor numbers (2) that we need to get the anti-Scientology majority on board. Jayen466 13:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that arbcom has traditionally been reluctant to rule on content issues, but this is not about content, it is about the quality of external links and sourcing, which is governed by policies and guidelines. So I hope we can get something along those lines out of this process. Note that there are sites directly analogous to the anti-Scientology sites for other religions, such as http://www.prophetofdoom.net and http://www.islam-watch.org etc. for Islam. Those sites are not listed as EL in our featured article on Islam, or used as sources there, but they are listed as EL in our article Criticism of Islam. I think we should proceed in much the same manner here – create a proper article on Criticism of Scientology, which is currently just a redirect to Scientology controversies, and cover these sites there. There is enough secondary literature on them. As it is, Misplaced Pages is used almost as an extension of these sites, adopting their tone and content. Jayen466 13:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So Jayen, how would you recommend we solve this? I don't know the subject well enough to tell when a particular statement sourced to an unreliable citation ought to stay or go when I remove the citation link. Perhaps the best thing is if I pore through this list identifying articles where these inline citations to unreliable sources occur, and write up a list for the editors who know this field to discuss? Durova 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to have some backing from arbcom before we start on this, for example in the form of a finding of fact that numerous Scientology articles have inadequate sourcing that is not in line with our policies and guidelines. I have no desire to argue or edit-war with other editors about the suitability of self-published essays, primary sources, affidavits on holysmoke.org and whyaretheydead.net etc. For example, look at the sourcing in Rehabilitation_Project_Force#Controversy. Bet you if we take those out, someone will come along and say, Hey, that was sourced. Jayen466 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresented evidence

This is a request to Justallofthem, concerning the evidence provided here. If this is the wrong place to respond directly to evidence provided by other parties, I ask an admin to let me know.

Justallofthem, I just reviewed that edit, and not only was it appropriate (perhaps minus the restored redlink), but when the FA author showed up and expanded that text, he expanded on the version Cirt restored, not the version TaborG put in place. There is a valid discussion of improper primary sourcing on the talk page there as well, but that's it. This is downright absurd straw-grasping, and in this case, you're trying to render a good edit negative when taken out of context. Please stop, it's inappropriate, and frankly it's below you. Any admin who takes two seconds to go through the three diffs that follow and glance at the talk page discussion will be fully aware of the context. You may have valid arguments, but this isn't one of them. You really should strike it. --GoodDamon 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You need to take another peek at that. Originally, the bit did not tie Ron's Journal 67 to the Bill so the reference to RJ67 would seem as off-topic or OR. TaborG apparently listened to the tape or went to the transcript and made a good-faith revision that tied RJ67 to the article with cogent edit summary correct quote and concentration on bill (here). He improved the article. Cirt reverted (here) back to the bad version that appears as OR. ChrisO, by far the writer of the article, came in next and tied RJ67 to the Bill. Now TaborG and ChrisO could prolly go back and forth as to how that bit should look and they could do that in good faith. Cirt's edit was WP:OWN and far from good faith. Trust me, I am just getting started on this theme. You will see more and better instances but I stand by this one too. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
And please be patient. I will not present anything on the Workshop page until I have laid out my evidence. Right now I have scant evidence but others can see where I am going if they want to help. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I look forward to the rest of your evidence then, but I hope you'll include more context in the future, because this one is very weak. Frankly, if TaborG went and listened to the tape himself, that's also OR, and it is quite correct to revert an OR addition back to a version that made FA. That the FA version also contains OR is a good topic of discussion, but not a good reason to go after Cirt. --GoodDamon 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Cough ... so if someone goes to the library (or the internet) and reads a book and makes an edit based on what he read then that is OR? The RJ67 tape is published material ... or was, don't know if you can still buy one but that does not matter. The whole point is that Cirt will not allow improvement of an article unless he approves of the editor - he is the gatekeeper and that just ain't right. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. If I go to the library, check out a reliable secondary source like a newspaper or book, and report its contents to Misplaced Pages, I am not engaging in original research. I am reporting the research of others. If I track down some old, long-unpublished audio recording originally produced by a primary source, and then report the contents of that otherwise unverifiable, primary source to Misplaced Pages, I am not relying on the research of others, I am doing my own research. Thus, OR. --GoodDamon 03:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(left) You are right in that that article is very much a bit of original research. It interesting and worthy of note that it passed featured review. Food for thought. As far as our topic, if we take it as given that the RJ67 tape is in the article anyway (as OR), for TaborG to connect it to the subject of the article was a good-faith improvement. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder here that two users who disagree over language like that can both be making good faith improvements. In this case, Cirt actually had the stronger argument, his argument was then bolstered by other editors, and TaborG didn't contest the changes. Now frankly, on the talk page, I think TaborG is correct and ChrisO mistaken on whether that section is a valid use of WP:PRIMARY sources, but that's a different topic. --GoodDamon 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have since added numerous examples in my evidence section on OWN showing Cirt's habitual behavior. There are many more egregious instances. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Previous related discussions

There have been quite a lot of others over the years, particularly one involving book links. I believe that some of the people involved here (under one name or another) were involved in these, so I'm surprised that they haven't mentioned them. AndroidCat (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to qualify exactly how he has contributed to Operation Clambake and if he presently does before trying to use it as a stick against him. (I assume you'd be going for WP:COI as a tactic?) A lot of material on Operation Clambake was swept up from different places and archives on previous sites. (It's not so much the first archive as The Site Who Lived.) AndroidCat (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
AC, has Operation Clambake ever actually gone to WP:RS/N to be vetted as a reliable source? A banned user named Terryeo makes references to it in one of the links you have above, but didn't link it directly, and I can't find it in the archives. If RS/N has ruled on Clambake (for or against or whatever), that's something that we should all be interested in looking up. If it hasn't, would anyone mind if, as an adjunct to this ArbCom, I brought up sites like Clambake at the noticeboard now? It would be nice to get some solid guidelines on whether they're usable and under what circumstances. --GoodDamon 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
There have been so many, I forget and don't have time to look for them right now. Obviously material from xenu.net itself wouldn't be RS, just like the personal pages of Introvigne on cesnur.org. The grey area has always been otherwise WP:V WP:RS material archived from somewhere else. AndroidCat (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova and Cirt have begun to take those links out. It is probably best that they do it; anyone else would be reverted. Jayen466 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... That assumes that they will continue to do it, and no, I have reverted Cirt on at least one occasion when he removed a book link with a boilerplate summary description of "not needed for WP:V." That could be said of any reference link, but there's a reason that Misplaced Pages doesn't flip the switch to turn off all links to other sites. As well, no effort was made to replace those links with ones to less objectionable sites, as was agreed to in the past. AndroidCat (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
AC, I hadn't actually intended to use his participation there as a stick at all. But it is still noteworthy that a number of editors have significant commitments to anti-Scientology work, and the anti-Scientology community, outside of Misplaced Pages. Being an anti-Scientologist is not soooo different from being a Scientologist. In the John Carmichael AfD, Geni (talk · contribs) provided a link to the enturbulation forum (an anti-Scientology forum), where forum participants were discussing the creation and/or possible deletion of that Misplaced Pages article. Terryeo said, in the discussion you linked above, that ChrisO had written 134 essays on Operation Clambake. If true (I'll check in a minute), that is more than an afternoon's work. Jayen466 16:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but you have to join Scientology, whereas you become an "anti-scientologist" the moment that you disagree with the Church official line, especially if you provide documentation. Any site that gathers an archive will soon be labeled as an anti-scientologist, anti-cult, attack site or counter-cult site. That's a no-win situation.
I've reverted my share of unsourced additions by people from places like the late enturbulation, pointed them to the Five Pillars, tried to explain why Misplaced Pages articles must be NPOV and sourced. I don't even edit the Anonymous articles (except at the start when it wasn't notable and the sources were fluff) due to the effort to be NPOV. I've also created a cite link library to avoid the copyvio and RS problems (like alterations) of "courtesy" news article copies. AndroidCat (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I haven't been taking links out, just documenting where they are. And Cirt has limited his removals to contributory copyright infringement, although it turns out he might have been a little overzealous because some of those were legal hostings. We're not trying to determine which of those sites are reliable and which aren't; that's probably better left for the reliable sources noticeboard. Durova 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)