From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:48:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
*does -> doesn't
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Is there a way to identify editors who are trying to make progress at
> writing the articles and being stymied by others? Are there some that
> just argue, and are there some that argue and write stuff as well? And
> by "write" I mean substantial contributions. Of course, this does mean
> that those who write are writing *well*, but at least they are doing
> more than arguing. Or are the articles at the stage where people are
> picking around the edges?
>
> Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:51:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
Not really. It's got so convoluted that's very difficult to see what
people are bickering about half the time.
Oh, and it affects about 400 articles.
Roger
------------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:27:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
Is there widespread support here for this? There's not much point in
proposing it if it doesn't pass?
Roger
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Roger Davies wrote:
>> The solution is to ban/topic ban a significant number of them but the
>> evidence doesn't really justify this. I can produce a case for banning
>> maybe three editors, and topic banning another three, but this isn't
>> really going to fix the underlying problems and I suspect it will come
>> back in a year.
-------------
From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:33:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Is there widespread support here for this? There's not much point in
> proposing it if it doesn't pass?
>
> Roger
>
>
> Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>>
>> I think that topic bans can, and indeed should, be used liberally.
>> I'd support a "You're not helping - go do something else for a while"
>> ban that is applied liberally to most participants even if the
>> disruption is low level *because* low level disruption over long
>> periods of time and by many participants is just as bad as the stuff
>> that readily lends itself to spectacular diffs.
>>
Just to make it clear that I mean *topic* ban in this context.
-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From: (Frank Bednarz)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:43:23 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
I'm with Marc.. As with date delinking, there are a lot of people who
should be on vacation from this specific topic. Some will stop editing
if they're topic banned, but others will still contribute in other
areas, to their credit.
Frank
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:39:08 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
I'll be very happy to seek and add "bad behaviour" diffs once I've
finished finding diffs for the Scientology case (which is practically
there otherwise).
Last time arbs hunted diffs I think it was called "activism" but I see
it as filling evidential gaps. Does anyone have more up to date info on
this?
Roger
-----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:49:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
> I'll be very happy to seek and add "bad behaviour" diffs once I've
> finished finding diffs for the Scientology case (which is practically
> there otherwise).
>
> Last time arbs hunted diffs I think it was called "activism" but I see
> it as filling evidential gaps. ?Does anyone have more up to date info on
> this?
"activism"? I think that was me calling it that...
<me looks askance at Kirill> :-)
Carcharoth
-------------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:51:52 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
<shocked look>
Was it you that led the witch hunt?
</shocked look>
Seriously though, are there any objections in-house?
Roger
------------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:01:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
Looking for evidence is needed in many cases.
The involved parties are not always interested or able to present good
evidence. Sometimes because they do not have a good grasp of WP
policies. Sometimes because users need a break and can't fully
participate without losing their cool.
Sometimes only one side of a dispute would get sanctions if we based
the decision entirely on the quality of the evidence that is submitted
rather than the actual problematic conduct in the contributor's
history.
Sydney
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:08:04 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
My take too. I think our role is much more analagous to the
European-style inquisitorial system than the Commonwealth/US adversarial
one and it would be good to sneak that into the Arbpol document when we
get round to it.
Roger
FloNight wrote:
> Looking for evidence is needed in many cases.
------------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:08:19 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>>
>>> I'll be very happy to seek and add "bad behaviour" diffs once I've
>>> finished finding diffs for the Scientology case (which is practically
>>> there otherwise).
>>>
>>> Last time arbs hunted diffs I think it was called "activism" but I see
>>> it as filling evidential gaps. ?Does anyone have more up to date info on
>>> this?
>>>
>>
>> "activism"? I think that was me calling it that...
>>
>> <me looks askance at Kirill> :-)
> <shocked look>
>
> Was it you that led the witch hunt?
>
> </shocked look>
>
> Seriously though, are there any objections in-house?
Well, no objections, but I'd say be careful.
If anyone really wants to remind themselves of what happened in the
incident Roger and I are referring to (well, I presume Roger is
thinking of the same thing), see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._from_this_casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nolley/WorkshopSearch the latter page for "activist", and see also Irpen's bit
further down the page.
For the record, I no longer totally agree with what I said there, but
I still think caution is needed to avoid the appearance of being
overly prosecutorial (I accept sometimes it is needed). Better to find
someone who is good at finding and presenting evidence and ask them to
"prosecute".
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:13:31 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
For the avoidance of doubt:
1. I don't think we should ever "prosecute" cases;
2. I do think we need to sometimes vigorously question/investigate to
get to the truth/expose facts as the quality of evidence is frequently
absymal.
This is why the inquisitorial model is more appropriate.
Roger
-----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:51:08 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
Relevant to this discussion, I collected the vast majority of Ayn Rand
evidence in the proposed decision. The evidence page was a good /starting
point/ and had some evidence that I used (most notably the canvassing
evidence). However, most of the edit waring diffs and so on were
investigated and compiled by me.
Pete
------------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:05:35 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:33 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> As some of you may have noticed, I have been building my own
> collection of evidence at on the arbcom wiki.
>
> The section "early history" and "current bugs" are now roughly
> accurate and ready, and I would like to push it onto the public
> evidence page, where they can be vetted, and maybe participants might
> improve on it, or it might spur on more analysis of the problem domain
> in addition to the behaviour problems which has mostly been the focus
> of the evidence so far.
>
>
http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...e#Early_history>
http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...ce#Current_bugs>
> Have arbitrators submitted evidence previously? ?How does everyone
> feel about this?
Done.
http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...John_VandenbergI accidentally did this while not on secure.wikimedia.org, i.e. on
en.wikipedia.org where I am not logged in, and since this was a high
visibility page, I have suppressed my IP address. sigh. I am going
to have to build something that prevents this from happening :-(
--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:12:08 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
I think it's not been done or rarely. I feel it's okay if done carefully,
you could be accused of COI.
Kinda related: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence
What's the view on IPs and ANONs presenting evidence?
r/
Randy Everette
------------
From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:42:45 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] date delinking - arbs adding evidence
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Randy Everette wrote:
>
> What's the view on IPs and ANONs presenting evidence?
Evidence is evidence, regardless of who presents it. Its evidentiary
value is what is important.
--
Stephen Bain
-------------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:02:34 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I have now finished this and is at:
http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...oposed_decisionI'd be very grateful if you'd all give it a once over as the remedies
are sweeping and it's probably better to get consensus here instead of
on-wiki.
Obviously, any feedback/improvements would be much appreciated
Thanks,
Roger
-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:06:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I'll look at this tonight.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:10:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Thank you very much.
I've ignored some of the stuff in the case (BLP and primary sources
mainly) because I suspect these problems will much reduce if the main
troublemakers are removed from the scene.
Roger
-----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:57:59 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
On a first look, I like it, but I want to review user behavior again.
r/
Randy Everette
-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:57:35 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I've reviewed and commented on the principles; will look at the findings
tomorrow.
Newyorkbrad
------------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:50:42 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I am recused due to Cirt's prior stated concerns and Jossi's potential
prominence in the case. However, I have substantial concerns about the
draft. My comments do not touch on either editor and I would post the
comments to the PD talk page if it were posted on-wiki. Would it be an
ethical problem if I provided that feedback here? Essentially, I do not want
to comment if people feel my recusal would make any such comments
inappropriate. My comments are about general tone and evidence handling in
the draft, singling out one or two editors as a examples.
Pete
-----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 20:55:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Recusal does not mean you can't comment on this email list .
r/
Randy Everette
----------
From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:02:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Hmmm...depends. Remember that a former member of this committee was called
to task in part for commenting on the mailing list on topics on which he had
recused.
I am "inactive" on this case, but I think it would be reasonable for Pete to
comment on the PD talk page; I'd suggest that he preface his comments by
saying "I am recused on this case, but wish to make a few comments..."
Risker
----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:07:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
It can be a tight rope but I think it's generally ok to comment on this mail
list but not on wiki and certainly not vote. I may well be in the minority
here, but that wouldn't be the first time ;-)
r/
Randy Everette
-----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:22:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
My main concern is that I do not want to unduly influence cases in which I
have recused. I usually feel comfortable commenting about a general
principle that is raised in cases where I am recused. However, this is a
direct comment on the case in progress. My concerns are fairly serious and
so I feel the imperative to share them. However, I also feel uncomfortable
skirting the edges of my recusal, if not outright crossing the line (if even
only a little). Recusal is a serious principle for me and I therefore feel
conflicted under the circumstances.
Pete
------------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:49:18 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion in Fringe science clarification
If you have time, could you take a look at the proposed scientology
decision at arbwiki please? That takes a tough line with problem editors
and it would be good if we can get the negotiating done before it's
posted on-wiki. Nothing sends a poor message so much as public
disagreements in ArbCom.
Roger
-----------
From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:50:59 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion in Fringe science clarification
I will do. Thanks for the reminder.
Fayssal F.
> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:49:18 +0000
> From: Roger Davies
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Motion in Fringe science clarification
> To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> If you have time, could you take a look at the proposed scientology
----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:47:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I would like a little more feedback before I comment or refrain until there
is a public discussion.
Pete
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:49:24 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Please feel free to comment here.
Roger
----------
From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:51:35 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Peter Casey wrote:
> I would like a little more feedback before I comment or refrain until there
> is a public discussion.
>
I think there is a line between commenting and attempting to campaign
and influence. I'm convinced you are smart and wise enough to know
where that line lies, and that any/all of us would quickly remind you of
it should you accidentally overstep.
So no, I see no difficulty.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:08:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Let's split the Jossi thing out, and handle it separately with a quick
vote. I don't think it's a good idea to deviate from our standard rule of
allowing not allowing admins to automatically regain adminship when they've
retired during an RFAR that threatens to investigate their behavior.
Everyone is better off if they can slip away. Kirill put it well on the
proposed decision.
Frank
----------
From: (Wizardman)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:54:02 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Looks good on the surface, I'll do a more detailed look later. If you don't
see any comments from me on arbwiki then take that as an asssumption that I
have no objections.
~W
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:54:06 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ayn Rand PD
How will you react in the Scientology case where the Church of
Scientology has been unleashing what appear to be employees to get our
articles to follow their line? I've proposed indef banning all of them.
What makes you think that people apparently doing their job will reform?
Roger
Carcharoth wrote:
> Like Sam, I oppose indefinite and "permanent" bans on principle, as
> these are something that should be done outside of ArbCom processes
> (by admins or arbs acting as admins, or by the community, usually when
> someone returns unrepentant after a one year ban).
>
> I'll get to voting on this case soon. Looking in from the outside, it
> looks a bit fractious, with one arb declaring someone is a vandal
> (since when do we deal with vandals?) and other arbs declaring that he
> has accepted his actions were wrong and has agreed to mentoring. We
> need to get on the same page on some basic issues before we have any
> more public wrangles like that.
>
> In passing, I noticed this:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...h_the_non-votes.
>
> Is that the same IP that commented before?
>
> Carcharoth
----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:09:19 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Please bear in mind that I am recused. I mention one specific editor and
examine the diffs provided for them simply as an example of the general
comments. It is impossible to demonstrate my concerns with specific
examples, but if my comments cross the line, I apologize in advance and
encourage you to caution me. This particular relates to my BLP related
comments, as they are the most forceful and extensive, due to the general
principle involved.
I am very concerned about the evidence presented in the findings and the
overall tone of the case. It comes across as a predecision that one side is
"right" and the other is "wrong", with the findings tailored to that goal.
The treatment of evidence is what causes this appearance, with evidence
against "anti-Scientologists" getting extremely skeptical treatment while
evidence against "pro-Scientologists" (or "pro-cult" editors) is treated
quite credulously. Mind you, I'm aware of the pro-Scientology sock/meat farm
they've going on there, so I'm not speaking to that portion of the dispute
or proposed decision.
My example editor is Jayen466. His finding states "Removed material,
critical of Scientology, sourced to reliable sources". The diffs do not
support the finding with it's clear implication of serious disruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258396822This is a rewrite, not the removal of sourced text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258435174Technically fits the finding. First he posted to the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=237140251He made the edit a day later. He was reverted. That was it. He didn't push
the issue, edit war, or anything else. That's almost textbook bold/revert
editing, which we encourage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=23375392219:51Oversighted. (Can someone illuminate as to why?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258354591Essentialy, he removed a paragraph based on a blog's posting of a local
politician's letter, a tabloid article that doesn't even mention the
subject, and a free weekly's brief mention that a politician is pissed off
and sent the subject a letter. It technically fits the bill, but this is the
kind of edit we should be rewarding, not punishing, if we intend to make BLP
a priority concern. The NY Post article makes no mention at all of the
article subject:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04192007/news/...ureau_chief.htmThe NY Press article only mentions the subject at the end and only in the
context of being the recepient of an angry letter from a local politician:
http://www.nypress.com/article-16488-the-r...on-rundown.htmlAs a general comment to the principle: My local politicians is pissed off at
someone and mouths off about writing them a letter with little to no real
coverage of the incident. If that can go in the target's biography as a full
paragraph with but tabloids and passing coverage and stick, BLP isn't worth
the value of my used toilet paper. This is especially so if people removing
it being cited (punished) for the action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255569111Like the first, this is a rewrite, not the deletion of sourced material.
Furthermore, the editor explicitly explained his editing in relation to this
specific issue at the case evidence page.
Two rewrites. One unknown (for now). Two edits that fit the letter but not
the spirit of the finding (and to the contrary, reflect editing behaviors we
typically encourage).
The one editor is just an example, but it does provide a clear example of
why I see the imbalance that I do. This appearance is further reinforced
when the two immediately preceding findings exonerate two editors from the
"other" side. I urge the drafter and arbs active on this case to review the
evidence again and correct/rebalance the draft decision as appropriate.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on this case. Again, if I have cross
the line in any way, I apologize in advance and hope that you will point out
the objectionable portions for the record and my benefit.
Pete
----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:11:35 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Sorry for the occasional missing words and typos. My wireless keyboard
apparently needed new batteries and I didn't proofread before I sent it off.
Pete
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:32:57 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Thank you very much for your comments: I do appreciate them.
First, it is very much a draft. Second, it's my first ever case, which
was probably not a good choice, and I've had problems getting a handle
on it. I could use input and I have asked for this several times. I am
intending to re-write it once the comments are all in.
What I have tried to do here is identify the people causing the most
trouble. The battle lines are the pro-, anti- and non-aligned but
involved. Jayen falls into the last group: interested in cults but not a
Scientologist.
The most blatant manifestation of that has been the socks, otherwise
it's been a simmering but broadly low-key dispute, with very little to
get your teeth into. Broadly, the mass of evidence is either weak or
inconclusive: I have ignored most of because it's either not credible
or because it simply doesn't demonstrate what it claims to. Against
that, this has gone on for four years; had four RfArs; affects 400+
articles; and shows no sign of abating.
The heart of the problem is the string of socks: mostly apparently
employees or highish level Scientologists. The fact remains that it is
wrong to destablise a heap of articles for your own ends: there's no
getting away from that.
Roger
----------
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:52:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
In-Reply-To: <715ff9f70903111109r458d4c5fjd745118e1c99cb35@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49B54BAA.6070001@gmail.com> <3F7D2839421E48D79BEE656A2227BEDE@EveretteCentral> <c52819d30903091657h2a65220byb7058fb9b87c9666@mail.gmail.com> <715ff9f70903091750x4059382cs1810f5278d685920@mail.gmail.com> <CBFB8640AE794DBF91B0D6EC955A443A@EveretteCentral> <eb45e7c0903091802u65f0baffl83d605499a42a3c0@mail.gmail.com> <715ff9f70903091822m3bb7ff72pf39722e631349f59@mail.gmail.com> <715ff9f70903101347w63688a55oe14ff5e016af0fed@mail.gmail.com> <8ec76cd10903101408h6e2d2b70j47c8496d2827ab9d@mail.gmail.com> <ef59f700903101454l512607a1sddf2340313d63221@mail.gmail.com>
<715ff9f70903111109r458d4c5fjd745118e1c99cb35@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49B80864.5080502@gmail.com>
A point I forgot to make in my longer posting to you is that the
anti-camp is nothing like as large or cohesive as the pro- faction, who
do very much the same sort of stuff from what appear to be largely
disposible accounts. (This is what the early COFS finding of "multiple
editors with a single voice" was all about.) In fact, it is difficult to
identify a specifically anti- group. If you look at the evidence of his
contributions, Cirt - who is apparently and allegedly the most anti -
makes balanced contributions, creating a stream of demonstrably quality
articles.
Roger
----------
From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:53:29 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
2009/3/11 Peter Casey
> <snip>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=23375392219:51> Oversighted. (Can someone illuminate as to why?)
>
No idea why this edit is not coming through properly. There is no record in
the oversight logs of either any edits in this article or any edits by this
editor being oversighted at any time. There are no deletion logs, and
there are no findings when trying to "view hidden revisions" for either
article or editor. Someone more tech savvy may be helpful here.
Risker
-----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:55:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Thank you for taking my comments in good cheer. I agree it's a rough case,
especially for your first case drafting. Perhaps some of the other arbs
who've drafted cases could help with some advice about handling a large case
with a lot of low-level nonsense. (*nudge nudge*) As I mentioned in my
intial comments, I agree the socking is a significant part of the case and
my concerns excluded them.
Pete
-----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:01:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=233753922The 19:51 at the end is causing the problem. My apologies, usually such
"dead links" for diffs indicate an oversighted edit.
Pete
----------
From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:05:30 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I accept and agree that the "anti" faction is considerably smaller, less
well-organized and receives less shelter from its peers. (Cirt smacking down
a few anti-Scientology crusaders comes to mind.) I think a large part of my
perception arose from the two exoneration findings for "anti" editors being
followed by an unsupported finding against a "pro cult" editor.
At this point, unless someone has further questions or comments begging
responses, I will detach myself from this discussion. Thank you for hearing
out my concerns.
Pete
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Roger Davies <
roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
> A point I forgot to make in my longer posting to you is that the
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:22:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
There have been professional counter-cultists on those articles. In fact, I
believe they were quite biased *against *Scientology until about last year.
That said, I agree that Cirt has been a balancing influence, and most of the
hardline anti-COFS people have dropped away. I just don't want you to have
illusions that this is a one-sided problem.
Frank
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> A point I forgot to make in my longer posting to you is that the
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:27:12 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I need to review all the diffs before this goes live but the Jayen466
finding is not unsupported. As an example, the cause of Sweeney's
explosion was his apparently being stalked by CofS employees,
culminating in Tom Davis turning up at his hotel unannounced. The whole
thing is on film and was extensively reported: I dug it out and watched
it. Jayen removed all that back fill, even though it was sourced. This
slants the article very differently. As does the change of "[BBC man]
rebuked" (source) to "[BBC man] disciplined" (Jayen).
Roger
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:28:57 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Actually, I'm grateful to you for the input. I'm not even slightly
precious about my text (I was a journalist too long) and broadly think
that everything is improved by having multiple eyes on it. I will pull
this around substantially.
Roger
Peter Casey wrote:
> Thank you for taking my comments in good cheer. I agree it's a rough case,
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:37:06 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I have no illusions (honest).
The main anti-cultist involved in the case is Alan Ross. However, his
contributions are all on talk pages, quite measured, and mostly aimed at
correcting stuff in articles about him. He doesn't seem to me to have
behaved incorrectly but if you think otherwise, please chip in.
If, in the 100 pages of evidence and 600 or so diffs, you can find stuff
to build a case against any others, I'd be very grateful. The main focus
of the pro's has been Cirt, and it didn't hold water.
Roger
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> There have been professional counter-cultists on those articles. In fact, I
----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Next up
Can we now wrap up Ayn Rand and post a PD on the 3-month old Scientology
case?
r/
Randy Everette
----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:54:09 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] wrapping up Ayn Rand
It needs 24 hours from the 4th vote to close so that matches up close,
should give Carc time to vote.
What do we need to do to get Scientology PD posted? I've lost track on what
the snag is.
r/
Randy Everette
-----Original Message-----
From: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:52 AM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] wrapping up Ayn Rand
I've noted on the motion to close that the close should wait until
after Carcharoth has voted.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:58:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] wrapping up Ayn Rand
I'll be posting sections in the hour or so in the workshop, with more
following tomorrow. The evidence has only just stopped coming in, among
other things (like I've found it challenging to do and there's a vast
amount of material to go through).
Roger
Randy Everette wrote:
> It needs 24 hours from the 4th vote to close so that matches up close,
> should give Carc time to vote.
>
> What do we need to do to get Scientology PD posted? I've lost
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:00:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jossi at proposed decision
I've had this through from Cirt and have his permission to circulate it.
Reactions?
Roger
cirt tric wrote:
> Dear Roger Davies,
>
> Regarding:
> <
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=277191652>
>
> This language seems to neglect to mention that Jossi resigned under
> controversial circumstances, "under a cloud", as it were.
>
> If you review Durova's evidence <
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...dence#Jossi>,
> specifically also the timeline of Jossi's actions at <
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...rcumstances>> - I think you will see it is quite clear that Jossi resigned his adminship
> under controversial circumstances.
>
> This should be reflected in the wording at the Proposed Decision page.
>
> Yours,
>
----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:07:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jossi at proposed decision
In all cases of admins losing their bit we need to specify how they can get
it back: request, RFA, arbcom, or a combo of the above. It causes MAJOR
problems when we don't.
r/
Randy Everette
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:13:35 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jossi at proposed decision
The committee is undecided on the best way to deal with this in this
case. Several arbitrators believe the best way forward is simply a
footnote next to Jossi's entry on the RfA archive index. Others that
the FOF should contain details of the "cloud". Clarity would be good.
Roger
-----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:27:20 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jossi at proposed decision
It just needs to be posted somehow so that we can say, "it's been handled."
It should have been done over two months ago. Since we've stalled this
long, we might as well post a finding.
I think you misunderstood the comments on the ArbCom wiki. My problem with
your finding (and Kirill's, I assume) is not so much that you included a
finding. Instead, I objected to the content of it. When an admin resigns
in the middle of a case involving them, that should be the end of the
inquiry. Allowing their quiet exit is beneficial to them (by avoiding
embarrassment), and us (by avoiding unnecessary *ex parte* adjudication).
Next time I'll take the initiative to force the footnote to a vote earlier
in the case so that it doesn't even need to be a finding.
In the meantime, I've taken the initiative to post a
remedy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Jossi.27s_administrator_status>
.
Frank
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:46:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jossi at proposed decision
Yes, we should tie up all the loose ends at the time they leave. We
should also try to have a standard way of dealing with it. My preferred
option is an anodyne FOF in the case, just recording that they've left,
with a corresponding footnote on the RfA archive, saying that they need
a new RfA to get the tools back.
And thanks for the initiative.
Roger
----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:08:37 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Aitias case
If he resigns, there is no need to do anything other than decline the case.
We can refer to the rule on people leaving while a request is pending (by
coincidence, I posted on this on the proposed decision page in Scientology
just yesterday). But the whole reason for my inventing the "Philwelch" rule
was so that we wouldn't need to do "kick them when they're down" motions
when people are leaving or hurting.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:19:13 -0700
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Regarding a post by Cool Hand Luke to the proposed decision talk page
yesterday:
*There's very little reason to suppose that the COFS takes responsibility
for all of its users, and there's no evidence that we've made any attempt to
resolve it through them (which usually occurs with other institutional range
blocks).*
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=277486523Actually, nearly two years ago I did confer with a more experienced
Wikipedian who held the highest positions of trust, and I discussed the
possibility of contacting the Church of Scientology organization management
directly. What I received as reply discouraged the notion as futile, and I
read it as strong implication that such efforts had already been made at a
previous time.
I hadn't anticipated that this point would have any bearing on arbitrator
deliberations or I would have informed the Committee sooner. It stood to
reason that after international press coverage actually occurred, no
reasonable doubt could exist that their management was indeed aware that
edits from their computers to Wikipedia were a problem.
Yesterday I emailed Cool Hand Luke to express this, and offered to contact
that other Wikipedian to request permission to share that person's name and
our correspondence on this point. Cool Hand Luke has not replied. If this
is a sticking point for any other arbitrator, please respond. For what it's
worth, the person I am referring to has never--to my knowledge--been any
sort of activist against Scientology.
Regards,
Durova
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:36:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
The slightly surprising thing about this is that the major editors using
COFS equipment appear to be COFs employees (two in the US, one in
Germany, without checking) so the fact seems to be COFS IP address =
COFS emplyee/staff.
I am happy to re-write the FOF so that is focuses slightly more on
editor behaviour but I am surprised by the rather anodyne substitutes.
Roger
---------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:38:55 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I have no trouble with the idea of something somewhat less "anodyne" (for a
change, I am the one learning a new word today), but I thought the original
proposal was a little too much. Maybe we can discuss here and work out a
wording.
How do we know that the editors in question are church employees?
Newyorkbrad
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:45:32 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
We don't know for certain; it's one of these likelier than not things.
I had an email analysing their times on-line: much of it was during
office hours. I'll ask if I can share it: the editor is cagey about
appearing anti-Scientology.
Roger
PS: Anodyne. It sounds like a brand of toothpaste (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:59:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
As written, it seemed to be a finding against the Church of Scientology. I
haven't seen evidence to make such a finding--especially if we're accusing
them of failing to uphold our policies (or as Durova understood it,
"habitually fails to exercise due control over the misuse of their Internet
connections"). Unless we asked them to specifically control their equipment
and employees, the finding seems to be an accusation of paid astroturfing.
I'd prefer not to issue findings about institutions unless their conduct
demonstrates misbehavior on Wikipedia.
Frank
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:17:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
I did not intend it to be a finding against COFS but it requires very
slight modification to make it a finding against the individuals.
We asked them to exercise control in the last (COFS) finding.
Roger
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:35:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Oh, and please share any evidence you're relying upon in this case. They
don't seem to be editing only during business hours.
Frank
-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:44:29 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
Do we know where their offices are located, or if there is more than one?
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:48:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
They're organised internationally and nationally, with headquarters and
branches wherever they have a major presence (or so I gather from
reading the articles in this case).
Roger
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:34 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
If we're going to use it, it has to be posted publically.
I am not, incidentally, relying on it. That particular allegation would
require a high burden of proof.
The premise was that they were editing heavily during business hours,
which suggested editing from work. There is also "evidence" publically
posted that "ordinary" Scientologists would not be permitted to post
about some of the article content. I take this last bit with a pinch of
salt but given the funds that COFS has available asking a couple or
three employees to keep an eye on key articles, and tweak them if
necessary, doesn't strike me as requiring a huge leap of imagination. We
get disclosures about organisations doing this, most recently the
British Conservative Party, all the time and we also receive many
articles daily which are CSDed as spam sent by employees. Given the
frequency with which COFS IP addresses are used, and the fact that
everyone seems to regard Wikipedia as fair game for PR purposes, it
wouldn't surprise me at all if it was semi-official.
Roger
----------
From: (cirt tric)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:20:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
Dear Arbitration Committee,
Regarding "Proposed enforcement - Cirt" <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...decision#Cirt_2>
To make this simpler: As is already required for all administrators per
WP:UNINVOLVED <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED>, I
acknowledge that I am an involved party on this topic, and agree to refrain
from enforcing discretionary sanctions under the provision of this case.
Also posted this on-wiki: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=277697498>
--
Cirt
---------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:32:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
It wouldn't surprise me either (although I suspect they would not use their
own IPs), but there's a gap between not being surprised and actually posting
a finding about it.
Incidentally, Justallofthem continues to protest his innocence as
Truthtell. Was a YellowMonkey/NiskKid combo, so I looked into it.
Looks like he was using a Bell South DSL line in Miami-Dade through February
1, but from February 8 forward, he began using a Comcast line in Miami
Dade. Through the whole period he has been using an address at a government
address (presumably his place of employment). Truthtell used a Bell South
DSL line in Miami-Dade on February 7 and 10--after Justallofthem switched to
Comcast. The IPs don't match, and the client was different from any of
Justallofthem's except for Truthtell's first edit on February 10, which
matched Justallofthem's old client "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1;
en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5" His second edit on the
10th reverted to "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
(compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR
2.0.50727)," which was the client used with the Feb 7 Truthtell edits.
It appears that Justallofthem was using "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT
5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6" at home since
February 8, having upgraded from "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1;
en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5," and this was his work
browser since at least the 6th. It would be curious for him to use the
older version on the 10th, unless it's more than one machine... on more than
one ISP... Hmm. Stands to reason that a customer would have overlapping ISP
service during a switch, I guess.
I don't think Miami-Dade + Bell South + Scientology is conclusive, but more
likely than not, I guess.
----------
From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:36:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
Yesterday, while I was checking some evidences presented I noted Cirt
insistence in introducing a Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's story to [Sex and
Scientology]. That prompted much resistance from the other camp; a thing I
understand since the whole personal story was kind of WP:UNDUE --if not
irrelevant at all.
As a general note, there's as much POV pushing from the anti-scientologists
as from the pro-scientology side. And in those Cruise/Kidman edits I see
that Cirt is as much a POV pusher as the other side in other instances. So
this is not just a question of being an involved or uninvolved
administrator. It is rather something else.
Fayssal F.
-----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:54:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
2009/3/16 Fayssal F.
> Yesterday, while I was checking some evidences presented I noted Cirt
> insistence in introducing a Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's story to [Sex and
> Scientology]. That prompted much resistance from the other camp; a thing I
> understand since the whole personal story was kind of WP:UNDUE --if not
> irrelevant at all.
>
> As a general note, there's as much POV pushing from the anti-scientologists
> as from the pro-scientology side. And in those Cruise/Kidman edits I see
> that Cirt is as much a POV pusher as the other side in other instances. So
> this is not just a question of being an involved or uninvolved
> administrator. It is rather something else.
>
> Fayssal F.
>
>
I concur. I think it's also telling how the anti-Scientologists have
attacked the sources finding, which is almost a word-for-word copy of our
policies. One of the problems with these articles is that they rely heavily
on self-published anti-COFS material. That should stop.
Frank
------------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:21:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
Let's identify the anti's and add them to the PD.
Roger
Fayssal F. wrote:
> As a general note, there's as much POV pushing from the anti-
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:23:43 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
I think this part of the core problem. I had some guy ask me a couple of
months ago whether we would change policy to include material for which
there were no sources. He missed the point big-time, I thought.
Roger
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
> I concur. I think it's also telling how the anti-Scientologists have
> attacked the sources finding, which is almost a word-for-word copy of our
> policies. One of the problems with these articles is that they rely heavily
> on self-published anti-COFS material. That should stop.
>
> Frank
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:38:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
More thought on this, why don't we include them in the PD, with a remedy
warning them about adherring to core policies?
Roger
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
> I concur. I think it's also telling how the anti-
----------
From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:05:48 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
I thought they had already been identified (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Let me be more frank than I
tried to be... Established editors seem to let the rest know that they know
all the policies by heart; they are in the project to protect it from
abusers and POV pushers; they are always right as in the case of the
'customer'. An example? Durova identifies Cirt as someone holding 'high
positions of trust'. I've heard that twice so far. What that does mean?! Is
that a free pass?! And then she attacks Jossi as if he was a 'criminal de
guerre' when Jossi has just intervened wrongly once in this whole
mess! Sincerely, I see that as tag teaming. No less, no more.
So my suggestion is that sanctions should be given evenly because overall,
both camps have harmed this project; everyone their way. An as an aside
note, it is easy for someone to trace an organization IP(s) but is it
possible to trace the other's side IPs without going for fishing
expedition?
My suggestion...Topic ban the lot!
Fayssal F.
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:35:38 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
I'm very much in favour in topic banning the lot, including the guys who
deserve outright banning (it's better to keep track on them, I think,
and a topic ban for the SPAs effectively means a site ban).
There's a sense of moral righteousness/indignation in this case which I
either find irritating or amusing (depending on my mood).
Roger
-----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:31:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
2009/3/16 Fayssal F.
> I thought they had already been identified (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Let me be more frank than I
> tried to be... Established editors seem to let the rest know that they know
> all the policies by heart; they are in the project to protect it from
> abusers and POV pushers; they are always right as in the case of the
> 'customer'. An example? Durova identifies Cirt as someone holding 'high
> positions of trust'. I've heard that twice so far. What that does mean?! Is
> that a free pass?! And then she attacks Jossi as if he was a 'criminal de
> guerre' when Jossi has just intervened wrongly once in this whole
> mess! Sincerely, I see that as tag teaming. No less, no more.
>
> So my suggestion is that sanctions should be given evenly because overall,
> both camps have harmed this project; everyone their way. An as an aside
> note, it is easy for someone to trace an organization IP(s) but is it
> possible to trace the other's side IPs without going for fishing
> expedition?
>
> My suggestion...Topic ban the lot!
>
> Fayssal F.
>
>
Yeah, that wouldn't go down well. This is an enormously asymmetric case.
Many anti-Scientologists are admins or better. The Scientologists aren't.
By definition, it's easier to address the Scientologists because
anti-Scientologists have had a firm footing almost since the beginning of
Wikipedia, having migrated *en masse* from alt.religion.scientology; they've
been openly congratulated for their work in linking attack sites from
BLPs,<http://www.clambake.org/archive/WIR/wir10-10.html>for example.
In this context, I find it alarming that we want to banish all the
Scientologists while "exonerating" the few anti-Scientologists we even
examine.
Frank
----------
From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
As an exmaple, I have one desktop and two laptops at home, and half a dozen I edit from regularly at work as well as my mother and mother in laws computer, all with differing versions of firefox (sometimes can't be assed upgrading or in the middle of something), so I have no problem with multiple computers these days as an explanation
Cas
______________________________
From: Cool Hand Luke
To: Roger Davies
Cc: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:32:09 AM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Scientology case
It wouldn't surprise me either (although I suspect they would not use their own IPs), but there's a gap between not being surprised and actually posting a finding about it.
Incidentally, Justallofthem continues to protest his innocence as Truthtell. Was a YellowMonkey/NiskKid combo, so I looked into it.
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:08:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt
I've had (yet another) comb through the evidence looking for egregious
anti's to sanction. They are thin on the ground.
Admin:ChrisO is, at first sight, a good candidate, having allegedly been
involved in Operation Clambake but he appears not to edit heavily in
Scientology-related subjects and his tone, when he has commented in talk
outside of the RfAr, could be described as "measured scepticism". I can
see no discernible bias in his Scientology main space postings though as
my impartiality is apparently being called into question I invite urgent
review of this by other arbitrators.
In this context, I imagine your comment that "I find it alarming that we
want to banish all theScientologists while "exonerating" the few
anti-Scientologists we even examine" applies to me. I don't want to
banish the Scientologists though I do want to get ALL the people who are
destabising this topic out of it. To do this, I have focused on people
who were (i) named parties and (ii) major blips on the /Evidence radar.
Now it turns out that intersection happens to mostly include
Scientologists but it was not my intention to target them. One
explanation, and probably the likeliest one, is that the more passionate
someone is about a subject, the more difficult they find to rein in
their feelings and edit neutrally.
I went into this case, incidentally, believing that it was good practice
to produce a FOF for each named parties, as a way of tying loose ends
and ensuring that the PD properly reflects the issues raised. I also
believe that arbitrators should comment on florid, ad hominem,
allegations, especially when there is no sensible evidential basis for
them. I still believe these are good principles though I am dismayed
that this practical belief is being taken as evidence of bias on my part.
Anyhow, to repeat (for the fifth? time), all suggestions for egregious
anti's to sanction are welcome.
Roger
ARBSCI case
MaliceAforethought ARBSCI case 
