From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:04:38 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RfA - false block of user CSI LA
Message-ID: <W93675462157401177909478@webmail25>

The request for checkuser is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS The check was by jpgordon. I doublechecked it. It shows some editing by both of you from the same computer and ip.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: CSI LA
>Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 09:51 PM
>To: 'Fred Bauder'
>Subject: RfA - false block of user CSI LA
>
>Hello,
>
>this is a Request for Arbitration. Please let me know if this is more or less a confidential procedure as the case might require to reveal private data.
>
>Topic:
>1. I and another user (user:COFS) got falsely blocked for being "sockpuppets" of each other
>2. my IP got falsely blocked harming hundreds of others
>
>1) It might be that I should go in contact with the checkuser first but I have not been able to find out which checkuser determined me a sockpuppet and why. The block was done by user:coelacan who is not a checkuser but Admin and did not respond to my emails so far.
>
>I got blocked today with the argument I would be a sockpuppet of user COFS.
>
>https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACSI_LA&diff=126950373&oldid=125719273
>
>This hit me pretty much as a surprise as I did not know COFS before this whole story started. What we seem to have in common is that we are living in Los Angeles, CA, and that we are members of the Church of Scientology (not in the same organization though). Otherwise I am a staff at the Church of Scientology, she is not (I don't know her profession, actually), I am male, she is female etc. We might be 15 years apart as well. We had one phone call and two emails in the past days since this matter erupted. That was all contact so far except that we are editing in the same area on Wikipedia, more or less "against" 20-30 hostile editors, once of which filed the above checkuser request after loosing an argument with COFS and after she added 20 new newspaper articles in a WP article. We are also in the WikiProject Scientology together.
>
>COFS says she is using her laptop with Wifi where ever she gets a connection and an SSL line (however that works) to log in. I am using the Church's equipment which runs through a proxy (ws.churchofscientology.org) for all 1,000+ internet connections worldwide. I can't image that we have the "same IP" or anything else identical. Per
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:CheckUser
>
>a checkuser then does some kind of crystal ball action on editing styles. Might be that COFS and myself have similar interest, or even similar ways to express ourselves, even though I think that I am way, way less impulsive than she is and you might find this by studying up on our edits.
>
>2) blocking the IP 205.227.165.244 is blocking each and every professional Scientologist from editing in Wikipedia and comes close to a discrimination issue. In the light of 1) above this is not understandable at all but looks more like a concerted effort to support POV pushing in Scientology articles.
>
>So what I am requesting is a neutral look into the matter and a fair, unemotional decision in 1).
>Further I would strongly recommend not to block 2) as this is shooting cannons at sparrows.
>
>Thanks for listeing,
>Ingo (CSI LA)
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:21:59 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RfA - false block of user CSI LA
Message-ID: <W423077677291391177942919@webmail9>


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ingo
>Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:21 PM
>To: fredbaud
>Subject: Re: RfA - false block of user CSI LA
>
>Thanks. Same computer? Impossible! Same IP, I don't know, if COFS is
>using any Church Internet computer at times (they are all on the same
>proxy), "maybe". But same computer, no.
>
>What about 2)?
>
>Ingo

This is not an exact science, so perhaps "same computer" is a stretch, but same ip is not. Having hundreds of people on one ip is not a good idea unless there is considerable discipline among those using the shared ip. Perhaps you could convert to a system which did not conflate responsibility in this way. Our policy is to treat all edits from a shared ip as the responsibility of all using the ip. We briefly banned the Congress of the United States under that theory when some staffers began augmenting congressional biographies.

Fred
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:09:32 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RfA - false block of user CSI LA

On 30/04/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud> wrote:

> This is not an exact science, so perhaps "same computer" is a stretch, but same ip is not. Having hundreds of people on one ip is not a good idea unless there is considerable discipline among those using the shared ip. Perhaps you could convert to a system which did not conflate responsibility in this way. Our policy is to treat all edits from a shared ip as the responsibility of all using the ip. We briefly banned the Congress of the United States under that theory when some staffers began augmenting congressional biographies.


The Church of Scientology has quite enough staffers on the Scientology
articles as it is. As what passes for an expert on the subject, I
strongly suggest treating everyone in one office as one editor.


- d.
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:36:35 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA - false block of user CSI LA


-----Original Message-----
From: Ingo
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 08:13 PM
To: fredbaud
Subject: Re: RfA - false block of user CSI LA

Indeed, I get complaints about Wikipedia pretty regularly (I am in the
external affairs office of the Church and sometimes a contact for our
members in such matters) as none of the 270+ articles on Scientology
reflects a neutral view. The Scientology discussion is very often
polarized but neutral articles can be done and bringing encyclopedic
quality to the people - for me - requires a balance. Currently there
are around 30 "anti" editors in Wikipedia (probably more) and less
than five Scientologists who are confronted with invalidation and
cynicism by the others, just for being there and contributing
information which the "other" side withholds. It is a long way to
change the old proxy system (literally more than 500 Church
organizations all over the world go through that thing) but it it is
easy to check who was using it when as it requires a logon to use it.

Ingo

On 4/30/07, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Most of the problems we have with users have nothing to do with legal matters, just with tendentious editing. This is especially true with Scientology with all the strong opinions pro and con. If someone is editwarring beyond what the site can tolerate, they are not committing any crime, but we still have to deal with it. Switching to a range of dynamic ips might be even worse as then we might have to block a range. I think what you want is to work with us, and assign troublesome editors to fixed ips. I suppose they could be identified by their bitter complaints about us to you.
>
> Fred
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ingo
> >Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 07:26 PM
> >To: fredbaud
> >Subject: Re: RfA - false block of user CSI LA
> >
> >Wow. The reason why they are all on the same IP is that the
> >firewall/proxy and porn/violence filter program is on that computer
> >and all internet traffic get routed through.
> >I am not that technically savvy to determine how this can be done
> >better but isn't it better to be able to trace back to an
> >organization (in case of law breach) than to have hundreds of dynamic
> >IPs?
> >
> >Well, I'll try to sort it out with the techies. What do I need to do
> >to get back on (and COFS for that matter)?
> >
> >Ingo
----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 06:44:06 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA - false block of user CSI LA

A bit of not-quite-right going on here, though. This was not a matter
of a single IP address, as a proxy might be. Rather, there are
multiple IP addresses, of different flavors, with multiple named
editors (including both CSI LA and COFS) on each of them.

On 5/1/07, Fred Bauder wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo [globetrotter3 gmx.net]
>
> > >Wow. The reason why they are all on the same IP is that the
> > >firewall/proxy and porn/violence filter program is on that computer
> > >and all internet traffic get routed through.


--
--jpgordon ????
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:14:49 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA - false block of user CSI LA

On 01/05/07, Josh Gordon wrote:

> A bit of not-quite-right going on here, though. This was not a matter
> of a single IP address, as a proxy might be. Rather, there are
> multiple IP addresses, of different flavors, with multiple named
> editors (including both CSI LA and COFS) on each of them.


If you read back through the list archives, you'll see the CoS has
been doing this for *years*.

Hey, at least they haven't tried to sue WMF into the ground.

(I am what passes as an expert on the CoS, probably enough to barely
rate an article (*shudder*). I also started the WP:SCN page and spend
way too much time telling other critics of the CoS to cool it. But
anyway ...)


- d.
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:51:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA - false block of user CSI LA

Perhaps both home and office editing. I really haven't checked the nature and quality of the editing.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Josh Gordon
>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 07:44 AM
>To: 'Arbitration Committee mailing list'
>Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA - false block of user CSI LA
>
>A bit of not-quite-right going on here, though. This was not a matter
------------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:18:10 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA - false block of user CSI LA

On 01/05/07, Fred Bauder wrote:

> Perhaps both home and office editing. I really haven't checked the nature and quality of the editing.


I'd strongly advise that if they can't read and understand the
CheckUser manual on mediawiki.org, then don't give them any clues.

Really. The CoS writes internal manuals on how to hack social systems
in this manner. If I told you that in the 1970s the CoS had an
internal intelligence operation to rival the FBI or CIA, you'd look at
me funny. So I'll just point you at [[Operation Snow White]], and
point out that them *finally* being prosecuted for that put Hubbard's
wife in jail and Hubbard himself on the lam until his death in 1986.
They're a *really nasty* bunch when they put their minds to it. (Read
the external links - the stipulated evidence, that being the stuff
they *admitted*, is utterly mind-boggling.)


- d.

------------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:33:26 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail

Now you are talking to the two people who did the checkuser. You did use the same ip. I doublechecked what Josh Gordon did. That can happen without you being the same people, but if the edits have the same content, our policy is to treat the accounts as one person. It is much better to use different ips, although the same rule can be brought to bear. Identical behavior will be treated as the behavior of one person.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ingo
>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:06 AM
>To: 'Josh Gordon'
>Cc: fredbaud
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
>
>Josh, I did request what you told me and as a reaction I got my talk
>page "protected" as a reaction.
>
>Here is what happened:
>
>Request reason: "there is a debate on the rightfulness of this block
>ongoing with the responsible checkuser on
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS
>and I request to be unblocked for that page"
>
>Decline reason: "No indication that the above admins and
>Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS were wrong in classifying
>you as a sock. If you have no other socks, you do not need to edit
>that discussion. Talk page protected for unblock abuse. ? Sandstein
>05:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)"
>
>I may reiterate that I am not COFS and not only the blocking of my
>shared IP (due to your actions) and Admin Sandstein are now bluntly
>violating Freedom of Speech. Let me know what to do next and I'll try
>it again.
>
>Ingo
>
>
>On 4/30/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
>> Sorry, I forgot you were blocked. You need to discuss this via an
>> {{unblock}} request on your talk page, or via email with an uninvolved
>> admin.
>>
>> On 4/30/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
>> > Feel free to discuss it there.
>> >
>> > On 4/30/07, Ingo <globetrotter3 at gmx.net> wrote:
>> > > And who are these others? I am not trying to make this a case of
>> > > discrimination but asking anti-Scientology editors about what to do
>> > > with a pro-Scientology editor seems kind of odd to me. This is how
>> > > this whole story began, when some users (Anynobody/ChrisO and Smee)
>> > > decided to get rid of those who are trying to balance Scientology
>> > > articles. I was reading your statement on COFS' talk page. There is no
>> > > "Great Firewall", the proxy is a porn/violence/hate filter.
>> > >
>> > > On 4/30/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
>> > > > I didn't block you, and I'm not unblocking you. All I did was make a
>> > > > report on my findings; you'll have to discuss the ramifications of
>> > > > these findings with others.
>> > > >
>> > > > On 4/30/07, Ingo wrote:
>> > > > > Josh,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You mean I should waive my privacy because we did not talk before I
>> > > > > got brandmarked? Sounds strange but from COFS' talk page I can see
>> > > > > that they figured it out already. So if I go and do this soul
>> > > > > stripper, do I then get back on?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ingo
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 4/29/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
>> > > > > > Just go to your talk page and explain exactly that: that of course you
>> > > > > > and COFS were coming from the same IP -- it's the proxy for your
>> > > > > > church.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 4/29/07, Ingo wrote:
>> > > > > > > Well, you were the checkuser "finding" some crystal ball data on me,
>> > > > > > > now damaging several hundred people and giving me a bad name, without
>> > > > > > > reason and proof. I can't accept that and I need your help to solve
>> > > > > > > this. It is not that I did not rub my head to get ideas how this could
>> > > > > > > have happened. I mean, as unreal as it is, maybe COFS was using the
>> > > > > > > same proxy than I did (there is internet connection in each Church in
>> > > > > > > the world, all on the same proxy) but still, just from our writing
>> > > > > > > style we are somewhat different. If this turns out to be some fake to
>> > > > > > > get rid of Scientologists, we'll all loose. Please help me sort this
>> > > > > > > out.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ingo
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 4/29/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
>> > > > > > > > I didn't block you. You'll need to talk to whoever did.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On 4/29/07, CSI LA wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > Hi J.P. Gordon, I saw you blocked me. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia policy but one thing I know for sure: I am NOT COFS. COFS is female, I am male, to start with. I have never edited under a different Wikipedia name. I am a staff of the Church of Scientology, COFS is not. What else you need to know? Ah, Churches of Scientology are using a filter to log onto the Internet (ws.churchofscientology.org). You just blocked a shared IP for about 1,000 people. I don't know how COFS accesses the internet but I got to know her a two days ago she said she would go in through a SSL or VPN line or something as she is at a wireless notebook. So, how can we solve this? Sincerely,. CSI LA
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:35:13 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail

On 01/05/07, Fred Bauder wrote:

> Identical behavior will be treated as the behavior of one person.


And that, by the way, is precisely the clause to apply here. Good one :-)


- d.
-----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:44:47 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA - false block of user CSI LA

Oh, I assure you, I don't want to give those assholes any leeway whatsoever.

On 5/1/07, David Gerard wrote:
> On 01/05/07, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > Perhaps both home and office editing. I really haven't checked the nature and quality of the editing.
>
>
> I'd strongly advise that if they can't read and understand the
> CheckUser manual on mediawiki.org, then don't give them any
-----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:02:03 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

The only two who have edited the cited ip 205.227.165.244 are CSI LA and Makoshack

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: Ingo
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:57 PM
To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail

Fred,

Thank you for pointing this out. I had someone test yesterday together
with Luana (COFS) what might have happened and I can see the point of
the checkuser "findings", same IP and network etc. Before this story
here I did not even know that the proxy has one IP and that's that.
But why is IP 205.227.165.244 blocked? You know that it is a shared IP
and there are most likely thousands of those allover the place, with
universities, companies, other big organizations etc, places where
knowledge is and where people can contribute a lot of good to WP. So I
do not understand this decision and my request for ArbCom stays unless
we can sort it out otherwise. I am very much willing to work on such
issues with you but right now all Wikipedia reps I encounter seem to
be a little uncooperative (that's why I cc'ed you on the mail to
Josh).

I got one complaint so far about not being able to log into WP
anymore. There will be more for sure and not very civil ones. If I
have to give out gift cards for the nearest Internet Cafe I will
charge WP for that (joke).

Seriously, how can we get the IP block resolved?

Ingo
-----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:51:49 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

What I would like to do is analyze the edits of CSI LA and make sure we are dealing with a troublesome editor. Not today though.

Fred
------------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:54:14 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail

I'm going to take a good look at your edits tomorrow.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ingo
>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:57 PM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
>
>Fred,
>
>Thank you for pointing this out. I had someone test yesterday together
-------------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 18:09:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (CSI LA)

Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coe...COFS_and_CSI_LA

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ingo
>Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 11:50 AM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
>
>Thanks!
><fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> So far what I've found looks pretty good. You are removing links to original research posted on other websites by anti-Scientology activists. It would be better if editors who were not involved were doing that, but I think that is within proper bounds.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Ingo
>> >Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 10:30 AM
>> >To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
>> >Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
>> >
>> >Great, thanks. Please let me know if I can assist. So far I know about
>> >three editors going through the proxy: CSI LA, COFS and Makoshack.
>> >
>> >Ingo
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:50:24 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (CSI LA)

The blocks have been reduced to one week. If you do have a small committee which is monitoring Wikipedia articles, you need to find ways to avoid the obvious pitfalls involved, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest This is probably headed for an arbitration case. The worst outcome would be a decision that lumped all pro-scientology editors together as a bunch of disruptive socks. If you want to play it safe, limit comments to talk pages and let uninvolved editors do the editing. There are people out there without strong pro or con opinions.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ingo
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 10:28 AM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail (CSI LA)
>
>Fred,
>
>the discussion seems to have moved around several pages but I think I
>can keep track of it.
>
>As a reminder, I can't contribute right now (neither does anybody else
>in the Church network) but feel that this is necessary seeing the
>finger pointing and mud throwing being done right now on people who
>have been effectively muzzled first. User Anynobody notes that you
>stated that "Misou" would be "in this IP range" (i.e. going through
>the proxy):
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS
>
>I can't find that anywhere but if that is true, the count of
>Scientologists is four now.
>
>What is happening next?
>
>Ingo
>
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:35:35 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (CSI LA)

On 03/05/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> The blocks have been reduced to one week. If you do have a small committee which is monitoring Wikipedia articles, you need to find ways to avoid the obvious pitfalls involved, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest This is probably headed for an arbitration case. The worst outcome would be a decision that lumped all pro-scientology editors together as a bunch of disruptive socks. If you want to play it safe, limit comments to talk pages and let uninvolved editors do the editing. There are people out there without strong pro or con opinions.


That'll be their cue to harass any critic off the pages.


- d.
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:31:04 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (CSI LA)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ingo
>Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 05:02 PM
>To: fredbaud at waterwiki.info
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail (CSI LA)
>
>Fred,
>
>thank you very much for bringing some sanity in this! We have no
>committee monitoring Wikipedia articles but I believe we should have
>one, to avoid COI issues or "vote stacking" or anything which gives a
>hostile observer the opportunity to interpret it as "socks action".
>I'll steer clear of talk pages as much as possible and will tell COFS
>to do the same. Misou - who has not been located yet - gets a note as
>well.

It's the talk pages where we want you to edit, to point out inaccuracies, etc., but courteously. What we don't want is a lot of edit warring accompanied by name calling and bad feeling. Of course, other parties must also cooperate. It is not all your responsibility.

Fred

>Maybe I convince them to stay off the articles (unlikely), at least
>for a while. I had started to analyze the content of those Scientology
>articles - there are more than 270 of them and counting - and came up
>with 82 blatant falsehoods so far, hundreds of OR/POV links and some
>more verifications to be done. I could probably write a book how
>Wikipedia is being used as an anti-Scientology propaganda instrument,
>by the concerted effort of 78 anti-Scientology activists from Germany,
>France, Australia, Canada, UK and the US of which around 20 are active
>24/7. What I am shooting for is a balanced set of articles and that is
>what I know from others on Wikipedia as well. Way to go. One hope I
>have is that there will be name registration at some point in time in
>Wikipedia and that no anon IPs can edit. This could make the editor a
>little bit more responsible for his/her actions.
>
>Anyway, I did not want to bore you with my thoughts, but thank you for
>the fair treatment!
>If there is any issue or questions on Scientology or needed
>coordination with the Church administration you can always contact me.
>Officially I can be reached at ingo at scientology.net .
>
>Ingo
Malice's note: Ach, I guess this makes the Scientology case more about cleaning up their own mess, eh?
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 13:35:11 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Problems with a Wikipedia admin
References: <4649E914.2030700@gmail.com>


Begin forwarded message:

> From: tom smith
> Date: May 15, 2007 1:08:36 PM EDT
> To: Jimmy Wales
> Subject: Problems with a Wikipedia admin
> Reply-To: atomsmitty at gmail.com
>
> Hi Jimmy,
> I think there is a case here of rough adminning from Coelacan.
> The incident began here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%
> 27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Possible_Vandalism_from_User:COFS
> It looks to me like an ally of the reported user (from the church of
> scientology) turned it into uncivil baiting and a mild personal
> attack here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justanother/
> Archive8#F451.2C_are_you_.22truth-challenged.22.3F
> My dialogue with Coelacan occured on our user pages:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> User_talk:Coelacan#Turning_your_quote_into_a_personal_attack.3F
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fahrenheit451#Re_.5B.
> 5BUser_talk:Coelacan.23Turning_your_quote_into_a_personal_attack.3F.
> 5D.5D
>
> I don't know that there is a quick fix for this. I opine that the
> AN/I page
> sometimes tends to turn otherwise patient admins into impulsive
> tyrants. In the
> interim, I am taking up any user policy violations with individual
> admins.
> I request that you have this matter looked into.
> Best regards,
> Tom Smith
> (producer and host of The Edge on WXYB AM1520)
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:31:56 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Problems with a Wikipedia admin

This is Scientology wars. Justanother is a Scientologist editor who's
been baiting Fahrenheit451, an anti, for a while, and Fahrenheit451
finds it difficult not to be provoked. See discussion of this on my
talk page as well.


- d.
----------

From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:56:27 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?

I believe that we are almost done with the "COFS" case. Principle 6:
"Responsibility of organizations" was added recently by Sydney, which
currently stands at 5-0. If the participating arbs who have not voted
there (UC, Simon, Charles M., and James) could take a look, the case
might then be ready for closing.

Paul August
------------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:04:14 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?

I still would like to see some justification for the "recruiting" remedy,
given that the findings of fact, as voted on, don't say that recruiting
occurred.
----------

From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:29:00 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Can we close "COFS"?

On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:

> I still would like to see some justification for the "recruiting"
> remedy, given that the findings of fact, as voted on, don't say
> that recruiting occurred.

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