From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:44:07 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
> Josh, in voting for that remedy, I took the view that asking COFS to
> not recruit doesn't require a finding that he has recruited.
>
> Paul August
So what WP:SOCK says is
"It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate."
Perhaps the wording could be improved by some 'drawing attention' to this.
Charles
-----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:55:32 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Is there any precedent for forcing an user to disclose their real world ID
and details of their job? I find this quite invasive and worry about how
this conflicts with the idea that users can edit anonymously if they choose
to do so.
The principle we passed only encourages it.
Disclosure
4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they
have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally
and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such
duties or allegiances.
And the COI guideline discusses the pros and cons of doing it.
My concern is that there is no way to verify on wiki that this is the real
person. It would require email verification from an official email address
or some other sort of official ID sent by fax or email to the Committee.
Anything less than this is open too falsification and hoax to satisfy me.
Sydney
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:45:58 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Yeah, good point. I'm really uncomfortable with what's happening here.
Look, I really really intensely dislike Scientology, Scientologists, and
anything associated with them. Perhaps I'm overcompensating by bending over
backwards to be fair and reasonable, but it really feels like we're doing
the wrong thing. Our remedies should be evidence based; if I were an outside
observer, I'd find it too easy to examine the impending results of this
arbitration and assume they were based instead on bias.
On 8/22/07, FloNight wrote:
>
> Is there any precedent for forcing an user to disclose their real world ID
-----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:54:37 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:55 PM, FloNight wrote:
> Is there any precedent for forcing an user to disclose their real
> world ID and details of their job?
I don't read the "disclosure" remedy as requiring this.
Paul August
-----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:01:02 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 22, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> I'm really uncomfortable with what's happening here.
What would make you more comfortable? What do you think we should do?
Paul August
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:16:39 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
We should base our remedies on evidence. There is no evidence that
"recruiting" occurred; in fact, after spending time dealing with these
annoying people, I've concluded they are perfectly capable of being annoying
in concert without any recruiting at all; they are, after all, members of a
brainwashed cult that demands a synoptic approach to the world and swiftly
punishes dissent.. I don't think "Hey, whatcha doing?" "I'm editing
Wikipedia to promote our point of view." "Hey, cool, I'm gonna do that too"
constitutes recruiting. I also think (as Flo does) that the language
regarding disclosure is ill conceived, but that's a different issue.
I think my votes suffice to describe my position. I really wish we'd been
able to find more evidence of malfeasance, but there really isn't anything
here that differentiates this from any other run of the mill POV pushing
case; and we don't demand disclosures from POV warriors, we just tell them
to stop doing it or piss off.
------------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:34:56 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 22, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> We should base our remedies on evidence. There is no evidence that
> "recruiting" occurred;
Josh, do you think the assertion about the pro-Scientology editors
all sharing the same physical network with COFS is unfounded?
Paul August
-----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:44:27 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close"COFS"?
I did a checkuser on these. They are all on two ips.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Timothy Titcomb
>Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 04:34 PM
>To: 'Arbitration Committee mailing list'
>Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
>
>
>On Aug 22, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
>
>> We should base our remedies on evidence. There is no evidence that
>> "recruiting" occurred;
>
>Josh, do you think the assertion about the pro-Scientology editors
>all sharing the same physical network with COFS is unfounded?
>
>Paul August
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:46:05 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
? No, of course not. I'm the one who provided `the `evidence that several of
the pro-Scientology editors were using the same network (
ws.churchofscientology.org, which I'm pretty sure is the Scientology Center
in Hollywood), as well as the same freedom.net anonymizing proxies. What
does this have to do with the allegations of recruiting?
------------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:50:32 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:46 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> ? No, of course not. I'm the one who provided `the `evidence that
> several of the pro-Scientology editors were using the same network
> (ws.churchofscientology.org, which I'm pretty sure is the
> Scientology Center in Hollywood), as well as the same freedom.net
> anonymizing proxies. What does this have to do with the allegations
> of recruiting?
>
Sorry Josh, I didn't realize that you were the one who provided that
evidence. So Isn't that circumstantial evidence that recruiting might
have gone on?
Paul August
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:51:30 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close"COFS"?
Actually, they were all on six IPs, four of which were freedom.net open
proxies, one of which is churchofscientology.org in Hollywood, the last of
which is scientology.org. I imagine some of the older proxy usages have
fallen off the checkuser radar by now. What does this have to do with
recruitment?
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:55:27 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 8/22/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry Josh, I didn't realize that you were the one who provided that
> evidence. So Isn't that circumstantial evidence that recruiting might
> have gone on?
>
>
Recruiting to turn them into scientology zombies happened sometime in the
past. Once they were there, no "recruitment" was necessary; their very
nature would have led them to walk in lockstep if they were going to edit
Wikipedia at all.
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:02:30 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> no "recruitment" was necessary; their very nature would have led
> them to walk in lockstep if they were going to edit Wikipedia at all.
Yes -- "if they were going to edit Wikipedia at all" -- that's the
key point. You think it is just a coincidence that they all decided
to edit Wikipedia simultaneously?
Paul August
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:10:01 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
What facts are in evidence that they "decided to edit Wikipedia
simultaneously"? Have I missed something?
-----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:30:47 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> What facts are in evidence that they "decided to edit Wikipedia
> simultaneously"? Have I missed something?
Well COFS first edit was on Feb 15, 07; CSI LA's first edit on Feb
12, 07. Misou made a handful of edits prior to in 06, but began
editing heavily on Feb 09, 07.
Paul August
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:11:37 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
But there are lots more Scientology users involved: Jut from that cluster of
IPs:
Makoshack started on10-18-2006
Grrilla 12-08-2006
Su-Jada 15-05-2007
So we've got two editors in that cluster starting on the same week, and four
more starting months apart. What we certainly don't have is any evidence
that COFS recruited anyone. I think it's equally likely that some policy
maker at the organization assigned several of their drones to push POV for
them.
---------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:25:18 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> I think it's equally likely that some policy maker at the
> organization assigned several of their drones to push POV for them.
In my opinion the most likely scenario is that one or more of these
editors recruited some or all of the others. In any event our remedy
simply *asks* COFS not to recruit, this does not imply that he *has*
recruited. I still don't see why is this is a problem.
Paul August
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:35:53 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Since there is no finding of fact of recruitment, it's assuming bad faith to
ask that he not do so. We may as well ask him not to spit on the floor.
(Readers of the Illuminatus! trilogy will be reminded of The Midget's
antics in the department store.)
-----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:46:38 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
When sock/meatpuppeting is going on it is very rare for us to be able to
know with certainty what the exact relationships are among editors.
Thus, Josh's point that we do not /know/ with certainty that recruitment
occurred is true insofar as we have not identified how many real-world
people are involved and what their relationships are.
I think it is farfetched to believe that all these editors are wholly
unrelated and just happened to show up together because they all share
an interest in Scientology.
The more plausible explanations are that:
a) Some or most are socks, and/or
b) Some or most are what we have usually called meatpuppets, a term I
avoided in the case in favor of writing of editors recruiting additional
editors.
Because the IPs are shared I don't think the evidence is there to
support a finding of sock puppetry. Recruitment is the lesser offense.
Steve
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:03:48 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
They showed up at the Scientology headquarters in LA. Of course they are
related. That's the big issue here, and why I voted to take the case: should
editors editing under a common banner, with a synoptic approach to editing,
and from a common location be treated as a single user? We're passing a
principle about "Responsibility of organizations"; what we need is a finding
of fact and a remedy to bring these together. That's the real issue, not
this "recruiting" red herring.
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:07:40 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:46 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> > ? No, of course not. I'm the one who provided `the `evidence that
> > several of the pro-Scientology editors were using the same network
> > (ws.churchofscientology.org, which I'm pretty sure is the
> > Scientology Center in Hollywood), as well as the same freedom.net
> > anonymizing proxies. What does this have to do with the allegations
> > of recruiting?
> Sorry Josh, I didn't realize that you were the one who provided that
> evidence. So Isn't that circumstantial evidence that recruiting might
> have gone on?
The usual way this would be done is as an operation by the Office of
Special Affairs within the Church. If they're editing Wikipedia from
COS IPs, the Church damn well knows about it and almost certainly told
them to.
- d.
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:09:00 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> > I think it's equally likely that some policy maker at the
> > organization assigned several of their drones to push POV for them.
> In my opinion the most likely scenario is that one or more of these
> editors recruited some or all of the others. In any event our remedy
> simply *asks* COFS not to recruit, this does not imply that he *has*
> recruited. I still don't see why is this is a problem.
It's most likely someone else told COFS and all the others to edit in
particular roles.
(in my opinion as an experienced COS-watcher)
- d.
-----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:15:44 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Usually Sockpuppets and Meatpuppets, especially those that seem to be single
purpose account, are treated the same; we apply the same remedy to all. We
did not over think issues such as who recruited who or why.
This case had a slightly different element to it that many of the pov edits
on a specific topic were coming from an Organizations headquarters.
Several issues were raised at the start of the case.
Whether a hard block the IP address was appropriate given it would stop all
edits from the Headquarters? (My thoughts; If they are causing problems then
we should do the usual graduated blocks after approprite graduated
warnings.)
Whether recruiting occurred or was the natural tendency of these folks to
edit the same way hense the similar edits? (My thought: A red herring that
we should ignore. Will cause us more problems by stating one way or the
other because there is no real way to know and we could be wrong. And based
on our past custom of blocking meatpuppets it does not matter.)
We make the basis for our decision that the owner of the IP address and
servers is responsible for all edits coming there skirting the issue of
recruitment or why.
Additionally I feel we are opening a can of worms by making COFS to declare
his relationship to the organization. There is no way to prove whether it is
true one way or the other. This user is likely not the only person editing
from there so why single them out?
Are we going to ask all editors from that IP address to do the same if they
show want to edit Scientology related articles? If so, given the long term
disputes in Real Life between the COS and others I think we are setting
ourselves up for Trouble with a capital T. Hoax/imposter accounts could be
right around the corner.
I do not want to get in the middle of these RL disputes any more than we
must. Let's keep the ruling focused on the wiki and stick to our usual
practice of topic ban or requiring to edit the talk page only. Neither of
which we did in this case.
Sydney
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:28:05 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, FloNight wrote:
> Are we going to ask all editors from that IP address to do the same if they
> show want to edit Scientology related articles? If so, given the long term
> disputes in Real Life between the COS and others I think we are setting
> ourselves up for Trouble with a capital T. Hoax/imposter accounts could be
> right around the corner.
Another difficulty: some of the most tendentious Scientologist
editors, e.g. User:Terryeo (for those who remember his eventual
banning) are hard to distinguish from the COS editors in their editing
- but are clearly editing from home and just being dedicated
ideologues of their own accord.
And then there's User:AI, who was clearly doing COS-sponsored editing
(you could see the radical difference in writing styles between
himself and his handler) from home and day-job accounts.
- d.
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:30:17 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, FloNight wrote:
> We make the basis for our decision that the owner of the IP address and
> servers is responsible for all edits coming there skirting the issue of
> recruitment or why.
> Additionally I feel we are opening a can of worms by making COFS to declare
> his relationship to the organization. There is no way to prove whether it is
> true one way or the other. This user is likely not the only person editing
> from there so why single them out?
> Are we going to ask all editors from that IP address to do the same if they
> show want to edit Scientology related articles? If so, given the long term
> disputes in Real Life between the COS and others I think we are setting
> ourselves up for Trouble with a capital T. Hoax/imposter accounts could be
> right around the corner.
Oh - since conflict of interest is in the air right now, and the COS
is getting called out for it quite a bit - perhaps a request that "to
avoid possible conflict of interest problems, the CoS is asked that
all editors editing on its behalf or from its IP addresses state their
organisational affiliation clearly and visibly." Sound workable?
- d.
Malice's note: We're watching "anyone can edit" fail to scale as anonymity breeds paranoia.-----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:05:01 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
My concern also relates to having users say that they are acting as
spokesperson for the organization. If they are editing from an official
headquarters IP address it gives some validity to the claim. But it could
also be a regular employee or member with access that is giving what they
interpret as the official position. We need to be careful about
accepting claims to represent an organization. So maybe it should be done
through OTRS or our Committee so that it can be evaluated by folks
experienced in dealing with this type of claim. The last thing we need are
the parties in this case to start arguing over this additional matter. And
they will...
For the other people that are using the headquarter IP address, I feel
disclosing there affiliation is a good thing and we should ask them to
voluntarily to do so as COI policy suggests. But I don't think it should be
required. Instead blocks or topic bans for disruptive editing should be done
based on user conduct irrespective of their affiliation. The same for all
folks that appear to be single purpose accounts whether they edit at home or
at another location; we ask they to voluntarily self identify
their affiliation and stick voluntarily to talk pages per policy.
Sydney
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:09:42 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, FloNight wrote:
> For the other people that are using the headquarter IP address, I feel
> disclosing there affiliation is a good thing and we should ask them to
> voluntarily to do so as COI policy suggests. But I don't think it should be
> required.
Asking nicely is just the right thing to do for public relations as
well. This is Wikipedia as 800lb gorilla. The CoS is a
former-800lb-gorilla that's getting a bit old and past it, but still
has a nasty temper.
- d.
-----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:21:24 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Yes, and many people could be scrutinizing our actions here since this is a
high profile topic. That does not mean we need to do anything fundementaly
different. It means that we need to be at our best so if questioned by the
media we can clearly explain how our policies work in general and
specifically in this incidence.
Sydney
------------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:23:33 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
P.S. We being >>David Gerard<< answering PR quieries.
Sydney
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:34:33 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, FloNight wrote:
> > Yes, and many people could be scrutinizing our actions here since this is
> a high profile topic. That does not mean we need to do anything fundementaly
> different. It means that we need to be at our best so if questioned by the
> media we can clearly explain how our policies work in general and
> specifically in this incidence.
> P.S. We being >>David Gerard<< answering PR quieries.
Indeed. Particularly as (a) the CoS edits as anons get particularly
prominent mentions in most press about the WikiScanner, and (b) I have
more than a little history with the CoS [*] ... it's *possible*
someone will notice this arbitration and ask about it.
- d.
[*]
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/pers/fun/ ... and the rest of the site.
------------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:55:12 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On Aug 23, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> They showed up at the Scientology headquarters in LA. Of course
> they are related. That's the big issue here, and why I voted to
> take the case: should editors editing under a common banner, with a
> synoptic approach to editing, and from a common location be treated
> as a single user? We're passing a principle about "Responsibility
> of organizations"; what we need is a finding of fact and a remedy
> to bring these together. That's the real issue, not this
> "recruiting" red herring.
Let's write something up then. What would you propose?
Paul August
------------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:57:50 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close something else?
I think common sense dictates not rushing to close COFS. We want to get it right, primarily.
Let's look for some simpler cases, then, to keep the voting moving. List of Republics? Any other candidates?
Charles
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:51:01 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Well, let's see. Here's one finding of fact:
Checkuser evidence shows that multiple editors have made strongly
pro-Scientology POV edits from Scientology-owned IPs, in particular
ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org.
Then we need a finding of fact that a conflict of interest exists. Then we
need a remedy, but I'm not sure at all how to word it.
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:55:00 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
> Well, let's see. Here's one finding of fact:
> Checkuser evidence shows that multiple editors have made strongly
> pro-Scientology POV edits from Scientology-owned IPs, in particular
> ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org.
> Then we need a finding of fact that a conflict of interest exists. Then we
> need a remedy, but I'm not sure at all how to word it.
suggestion:
(a) that they be treated as a single editor for these purposes
(b) that the Church be asked to damn well stop it^W^W^W^Wplease make
sure official representatives OR editors from church IPs identify
themselves as such.
(a) should do nicely for keeping rubbish edits under control.
- d.
------------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:03:15 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Of course, most of the time nowadays they're using the freedom.net open
proxies rather than the Scientology IPs, but we can just deal with that by
shutting 'em down.
------------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:17:39 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Anyone remember which decision had "editors indistinguishable from each
other can be treated as single editors for the purpose of determining
puppetry" or whatever the language was?
-------------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:21:48 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close something else?
On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
>
> I think common sense dictates not rushing to close COFS. We want to get it
> right, primarily.
>
> Let's look for some simpler cases, then, to keep the voting moving. List
> of Republics? Any other candidates?
>
> Charles
Good plan (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) List of Republics seems a good choice.
Sydney
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:24:10 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, Josh Gordon
> Anyone remember which decision had "editors indistinguishable from each
> other can be treated as single editors for the purpose of determining
> puppetry" or whatever the language was?
One of Fred's great items:
| It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several
| editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meatpuppets,
| or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies
| may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather
| than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the
| same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.
See
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&clien...nG=Search&meta=for more.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:25:40 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, James Forrester wrote:
> | It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several
> | editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meatpuppets,
> | or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies
> | may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather
> | than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the
> | same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.
I suggest making that last sentence "The Arbitration Committee may
determine ..." to avoid idiots abusing it.
- d.
------------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:33:19 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Yeah, we'll need to tweak the language -- "geographic area" isn't relevant.
-----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:38:28 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close something else?
On Aug 23, 2007, at 10:57 AM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> I think common sense dictates not rushing to close COFS. We want to
> get it right, primarily.
Yes that's fine with me. I'm not interested in closing this before we
work this out, and get it right.
>
> Let's look for some simpler cases, then, to keep the voting moving.
> List of Republics? Any other candidates?
"Attachment Therapy" is close. All proposals stand 6-0 (but I've
added a new version of "sockpuppetry", that the some of other
participating arbs -- Kirill, UC, Fred, and Simon -- have yet to
comment on). So we only need one more arb to take vote there.
Paul August
-----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:47:39 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
What about a finding something like this:
COFS and other editors, all of whom have edited with a pro-
Scientology point of view, share the same physical network
connection, and have editing histories which cover roughly the same
periods of time, and the same articles.
It is unlikely that they are all editing completely independently.
It is reasonable to suppose that their actions have been coordinated,
and that one or more of these editors may have been influenced by
others to edit on behalf of their point of view.
Paul August
------------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:00:00 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
On 23/08/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> What about a finding something like this:
The only minus point I can see there is future POV warriors reading
that to mean they can presume their opponents really are ganging up on
them.
- d.
------------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:12:03 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
Yes, I'm one to think that less is more. Also when we write up the
details it is also too easy to get a little part wrong and THAT becomes the
foucus of more arguing. The more broad the better. The more closely worded
with policy/guidelines the better.
Our main charge is to stop disruption so the users can get back to writing
the encyclopedia. We do not need to go overboard spelling out why inorder to
make the case that our decisions are fair. Most of the time parties will not
care, really. If ruled against then they will feel an injustice has been
done no matter what.
Sydney
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:43:49 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?
I agree with the "less is more" philosophy here.
I'm going to fight any "it is reasonable to suppose" language in pretty much
any arbitration in the absence of evidence supporting it, especially when we
don't need it at all. The COI here is so obvious that we don't need any
suppositions of any sort.