The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> ARBSCI case
MaliceAforethought
post Sat 30th July 2011, 3:16pm
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:41:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

This morning I opened a request for arbitration on the Scientology disputes,
naming Jossi as one of the parties.

Jossi has posted to RFAR requesting that his name be removed from the case.
His rationale is that his only involvement is a couple of posts to AE.

However, Jossi has pursued questionable tactics offsite to undermine Cirt
for some time. During Cirt's RFA I received a credible report that Jossi
had attempted to canvass opposes to Cirt via email. For several months
Jossi contacted me privately, mostly regarding Cirt, and upon later review I
developed serious concerns about Jossi's side of the correspondence. I
believe these matters are pertinent to the requested case, and there is no
other venue than arbitration that is capable of reviewing them.

Please retain Jossi on the list of named parties.

Thank you,
Lise
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:46:32 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

Remember that Cirt notified the AC that he had credible fears for his
personal safety due to Jossi's actions.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:04:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

Whether or not he is deemed a party will ultimately depend on whether or not
there is any credible evidence that he is involved in a substantial way. I
don't think it's a particularly good precedent to add people as parties to
cases based on "a credible report" about
e-mail canvassing, and Durova's "serious concerns" about e-mail
correspondence she had with jossi.

Regarding the case itself, I've looked it over, and am unclear as to why it
is required at this point.
----------

From: (Charles Matthews)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:35:18 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

jayjg wrote:
> Whether or not he is deemed a party will ultimately depend on whether
> or not there is any credible evidence that he is involved in a
> substantial way. I don't think it's a particularly good precedent to
> add people as parties to cases based on "a credible report" about
> e-mail canvassing, and Durova's "serious concerns" about e-mail
> correspondence she had with jossi.
>
> Regarding the case itself, I've looked it over, and am unclear as to
> why it is required at this point.
I have voted to accept, and advocated for a free hand to include
people. Given this is scientology, and not anything routine, I think we
should take a good look.

Charles
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:35:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

2008/12/8 Charles Matthews:

> I have voted to accept, and advocated for a free hand to include
> people. Given this is scientology, and not anything routine, I think we
> should take a good look.


I strongly suggest a checkusering of all pro-Scientology editors in
the dispute, 'cos I bet you (on historical evidence) half are socks or
CoS IPs.

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

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:44:44 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

Anyone mind me following up this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...kuser/Case/COFS

Relevant to the present Scientology case, where they're trying to get
a writer of several featured articles kicked off the topic.

Note that pro-Scientology editors on Wikipedia are a hotbed of
sockpuppetry and Church of Scientology editors.

I suggest I do it because I know a lot about them, but a second person
to do so as well would be good.

If anyone says "you shouldn't do that", could they please do so?


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

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:07:16 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

A quick look indicates to me that it's going to be very similar to the
results I got from the first COFS arbcom. Shutterbug, Prosmodix, TaborG,
and DerFlipper have editing from the same CofS IPS (and their recommended
open proxies, I think.). Misou unrelated, and Shrampes on a series of open
proxies (or equivalent; sdfree.net is basically an open proxy, and we had an
argument over this the first COFS arb.)
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:20:24 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/11 Josh Gordon :
> A quick look indicates to me that it's going to be very similar to the
> results I got from the first COFS arbcom. Shutterbug, Prosmodix, TaborG,
> and DerFlipper have editing from the same CofS IPS (and their recommended
> open proxies, I think.). Misou unrelated, and Shrampes on a series of open
> proxies (or equivalent; sdfree.net is basically an open proxy, and we had an
> argument over this the first COFS arb.)

* Block all the open proxies
* The editing patterns are the same
* Why aren't these people just being blocked?

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

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:51:01 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

Seems to me we shouldn't even need a full case; this should just be an
arbitration enforcement issue.
As far as the proxies are concerned, I'm not entirely sure that's what they
are (for a couple of them), and the when I blocked sdfree.net, it eventually
got overturned (it's not a proxy-for-the-sake-of-anonymity, it's a free
dialup ISP.)
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:23:59 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/12 Josh Gordon:

> Seems to me we shouldn't even need a full case; this should just be an
> arbitration enforcement issue.

I'm surprised at the lack of comment from arbitrators to my message so far.

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

From: (Charles Matthews)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:51:45 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/12 Josh Gordon:
>
>
>> Seems to me we shouldn't even need a full case; this should just be an
>> arbitration enforcement issue.
>>
>
>
> I'm surprised at the lack of comment from arbitrators to my message so far.
>
>
Since the blocking of proxies doesn't prevent the use of accounts, it
seems to me that David could block the proxies in question (after
investigation of their exact status).

Charles
----------

From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:57:36 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

What part of it are you surprised at?

No big shock that there's rampant socking going on. Before, we've
blocked editors from the same free ISP who are editing similar
articles similarly, for that matter; I would be inclined to do the
same thing again here.

What's everyone's judgment now about whether this is actually
something that needs a case? I'm now leaning more towards a motion or
clarification; surely this is something that admins, with checkuser
assistance, can handle?

-Matthew
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:20:37 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

That seems like a reasonable approach; block the socks, clarify
on-Wikipedia.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:40:02 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/12 jayjg:

> That seems like a reasonable approach; block the socks, clarify
> on-Wikipedia.


I should point out that it may be an idea for me to avoid such blocks
myself - I'm a prominent critic of Scientology.


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

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:18:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

Given that there is already a case open, we should probably just let it
proceed. If appropriate, we can get a brief proposed decision written and
posted very quickly after the one week for evidence submissions has
elapsed. I don't plan to write this one myself but would be glad to comment
on a draft before or after it is posted.

I didn't vote on accepting the case, but I think there were concerns that
went well beyond the socking issue (I haven't investigated the legitimacy of
the concerns in any detail myself, though).

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:44:40 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/12 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia):

> I didn't vote on accepting the case, but I think there were concerns that
> went well beyond the socking issue (I haven't investigated the legitimacy of
> the concerns in any detail myself, though).


Cirt has written a lot of featured articles on Scientology, not to
mention Wikinews reports. The Scientologists aren't happy about this
and are trying to get him voted off the island.


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

From: (YellowMonkey)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:40:49 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

What are thet blocks needed? I'll get someone to do them, or do it myself
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:43:36 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/12 jayjg :
>
>> That seems like a reasonable approach; block the socks, clarify
>> on-Wikipedia.
>
>
> I should point out that it may be an idea for me to avoid such blocks
> myself - I'm a prominent critic of Scientology.

Strong support for that.
----------

From: (Richard Symonds)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:42:53 -0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Private evidence for the 'Scientology' arbcom case

Hello folks,

I have recently been in discussion, via email, with Shutterbug, an involved party in this case. I am an uninvolved administrator. I was emailing Shutterbug to ask about her photography skills - I am an amateur photographer, and I enjoy swapping photos and techniques with other photographers.

When I received my first email from Shutterbug, I thought that I might use her e-mail address to find online galleries of her work - if I searched the first part of her email address, it's usually used as a username on other sites. My own email address is directly linked to my previous Wikipedia username. I did a few google searches, but found no photo galleries.

What I did find was not what I expected to find. Shutterbug's email address is cofsll at gmail.com, which, from my searches, I think may refer to 'Church of Scientology - Louanne Lee'. The email address is used several times to post strong pro-scientology articles on websites, under the name 'Louanne'. The comment at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/08/3...3.shtml?discuss is an example, and she seems to post a lot at http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/. There are also mentions of both her and a gentleman known as 'Terryeo' on anti-scientology sites as employees of the Church, employees who frequent the online environment in order to post news articles or spread rumours about anti-scientologists. I have not heard of Terryeo before this, but he might be related to a Wikipedia user of the same or a similar name.

I can supply more links if you require, but I wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of the link between Shutterbug, Louanne Lee and Scientology.

Kind regards,

Richard Symonds

User: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
----------

From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:00 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Private evidence for the 'Scientology' arbcom case

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Richard Symonds wrote:
>
> I can supply more links if you require, but I wanted to make sure that the
> committee was aware of the link between Shutterbug, Louanne Lee and
> Scientology.

Thanks Richard, we have received this email.

--
Stephen Bain
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:46:15 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real name
connected to my username

David Gerard recommended that I forward this on as evidence...

Today I oversighted an edit which outs user:Fahrenheit451 to be "Tom
Smith", a person mentioned throughout the Evidence page already.

"...not to forget the Tom Smith arguments of Fahrenheit451. Shutterbug
(talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"

I am still not convinced that Shutterbug knew that user:Fahrenheit451
was Tom Smith; Tom hasnt yet confirmed that they knew his username -
if they didnt before, they do now.

--
John Vandenberg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Vandenberg
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real name
connected to my username
To: Tom Smith
Cc: Requests to permanently remove personal information from the
English Wikipedia <oversight-l at lists.wikimedia.org>


On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:27 PM, tom smith wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:17 PM, tom smith wrote:
>>> Shutterbug is a scientologist who has a history of tendentious editing
>>> on Wikipedia. The CofS views me as an enemy because I have done radio
>>> interviews exposing criminal activity in the cofs. Shutterbug evidently
>>> has been directed to Fair Game me.
>>> Shutterbug has violated wikipedia policy here by publishing my real name
>>> along with my Wikipedia username:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=259264460
>>> I request that this be permanently removed and the appropriate action
>>> taken against Shutterbug.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Tom Smith as Fahrenheit451
>>
>> Caution is needed here; if I oversight that edit, it then becomes
>> obvious to all who followed the recent edits, especially Shutterbug,
>> that Tom Smith is Fahrenheit451.
>>
>> Are you _sure_ that he is outing you, because it could easily just be
>> him referring to your evidence. It is only a vague linkage. If you
>> know that he knows what your wikipedia username is, then it might be
>> worth oversighting, but a very stern warning email from me could also
>> do the trick.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
> Hi John,
> Scientology's Office of Special Affairs knows who I am. Shutterbug is one of
> their "helpers" and has done something similar before, but in a more subtle
> manner where the intent was not clear. This situation is rather overt. Note
> that the sentence in question is put outside the main body of the previous
> paragraph. From the content and context, he is clearly trying to connect my
> real name to my Wikipedia username.
>
> "...not to forget the Tom Smith arguments of Fahrenheit451. Shutterbug (talk)
> 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"
>
> I would like to see it oversighted. A warning email would only give him
> gratification, which he would pass along to his handlers who would laugh at it.
> No warning, please. Just oversight.
> Also, could you please notify this administrator who started an Arbitration on
> some of the problem scientology editors, which includes Shutterbug? He is
> Durova at nadezhda.durova at gmail.com He is aware of it, but should be informed
> of how it is dealt with.

I have oversighted these edits. This is what it looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=259264460

Shutterbug should really be warned, or issued a block, but I'll leave
that as something to be discussed. Hopefully they get the hint.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:59:41 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
nameconnected to my username

Suggestion-when we do this, can we mention which case this is in reference
to, either in the subject line or in the first sentence of the body?

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:51:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

Hey,

I have had concerns expressed to me that the Cirt/Jossi dispute should
be severed from the Scientology case because the scope is quite
different. I've looked into it a bit and I would tend to agree. I
don't think severing aspects of a live case is or was commonly done, but
I expect it should be doable with a little clerk help.

Given, especially, the concerned expressed over omnibus cases in the
past (SV/Cla/et al. come to mind), I think we should seriously entertain
the possibility. Thoughts?

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:13:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I have had concerns expressed to me that the Cirt/Jossi dispute should
> be severed from the Scientology case because the scope is quite
> different. I've looked into it a bit and I would tend to agree. I
> don't think severing aspects of a live case is or was commonly done, but
> I expect it should be doable with a little clerk help.
>
> Given, especially, the concerned expressed over omnibus cases in the
> past (SV/Cla/et al. come to mind), I think we should seriously entertain
> the possibility. Thoughts?


The Cirt/Jossi dispute has nothing to do with the Scientology dispute, as
far as I can tell; but I wasn't aware that anyone was intending on including
it in the decision to begin with. Just because something has been brought
up doesn't mean that we need to deal with it in the present case.

Kirill
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:34:26 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

If issues come up in a case, and we think a remedy is required, it makes
little difference whether it's adopted in that case or a new one is opened.

The key issue always is whether the parties have fair notice of what issues
we are reviewing and what actions are being considered.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:44:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Marc A. Pelletier:

> I have had concerns expressed to me that the Cirt/Jossi dispute should
> be severed from the Scientology case because the scope is quite
> different. I've looked into it a bit and I would tend to agree. I
> don't think severing aspects of a live case is or was commonly done, but
> I expect it should be doable with a little clerk help.


(speaking here as an expert on Scientology, and someone Cirt's been
asking advice of on how to deal with this stuff)

Cirt v. Jossi goes back to Prem Rawat-related articles. (Jossi is a
follower of Prem Rawat, though whether he admits or denies this
appears to depend on which month it is - he's explicitly denied it on
wikien-l and admitted it on the wiki.) Cirt has expressed serious
worries of threats of outing he's received from Jossi, which have been
forwarded at length to the arbcom previously, and apparently ignored.

The current arbitration case smells like a semi-official Scientology
operation. Shutterbug is a CoS staffer. He wouldn't be editing here
without official imprimatur. Cirt is the author and driver of several
featured articles on Scientology and many reports on Wikinews that
have had the CoS hopping mad. The goal of the present case is to get
Cirt voted off the island.

Warnings, cautionary notes, etc. won't work on a CoS operation.
Previous example is User:AI.

The Scientology-related sockpuppet farm *still* hasn't been cleared.
Someone else needs to (a) run the checkuser (b) get a second checkuser
to go through it © block the sock farm. I should not do any of these
as a well-known critic of Scientology. See CoS supporters on the
workshop already demanding I be removed from this list because this is
a Scientology-related case ...

Clean up the blatant sockpuppetry going on, and the whole case will
simplify hugely.

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

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:49:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

It should be dealt with now, in this case or separately. Not doing so will
only delay the inevitable.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:53:26 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

Where is the info on the CoS sock farms? Which RFCUs etc? I can run the
checks and Jpgordon would be a good backup checker.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:07:50 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Randy Everette:

> Where is the info on the CoS sock farms? Which RFCUs etc? I can run the
> checks and Jpgordon would be a good backup checker.


A message on checkuser-l from late October from Brian McNeil:

===
New proxy for y'all to block? [address]

This came to light checkusering user Shutterbug after some Church of
Scientology related disruption. Already blocked on nl.wp was the
giveaway.
===

An RFCU page on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...kuser/Case/COFS


They're using an open proxy system to try to supply plausible
deniability. Some addresses do in fact trace back to CoS-owned IPs.

If you see an edit from a CoS-owned IP, it's official work. No
exceptions, no matter what claims of a staffer doing it in their
"spare time." There is no such thing as spare time from a CoS
computer. Access to the internet from CoS computers is *incredibly*
restricted.


See also:

* Checkuser on TaborG, Shrampes and Derflipper (feel free to rerun the CU)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...rbitration/COFS
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...uctosecornsyrup

I'll forward this to the CU list as well if there's anything I've forgotten.


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

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:11:38 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Randy Everette:

> Where is the info on the CoS sock farms? Which RFCUs etc? I can run the
> checks and Jpgordon would be a good backup checker.


As I noted to checkuser-l as well:

===
The editors in question are making various lame excuses as to why
they're sharing almost-open proxies, CoS computers, etc. To any
checkuser these are fairly obviously on the level of "my dog ate my
IP."

If it's blindingly obvious to you, I suggest getting a second opinion
then blocking like an anvil falling from the sky. Then notify
arbcom-l.
===


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

From: (jayjg)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:41:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:46 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:

> David Gerard recommended that I forward this on as evidence...
>
> Today I oversighted an edit which outs user:Fahrenheit451 to be "Tom
> Smith", a person mentioned throughout the Evidence page already.
>
> "...not to forget the Tom Smith arguments of Fahrenheit451. Shutterbug
> (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"
>
> I am still not convinced that Shutterbug knew that user:Fahrenheit451
> was Tom Smith; Tom hasnt yet confirmed that they knew his username -
> if they didnt before, they do now.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg

It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:26:38 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Checkuser-l] Fwd: in re Scientology

Jpgordon's results in RFCU/COFS are confirmed.

I also found new accounts Shutterbug1 and TaborGer. And on a range check of
ns1.scientology, Su-Jada, Leahjenine.

Proxies are definitely in use.

I want to look into this more too.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:12:17 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:41 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.

And if sanctioned by the organisation, which is possible, would extend
to blocking the entire organisation, and putting the case to bed quite
quickly.

But we _need_ Tom Smith to first explain why he believes that CoS knew
that his username was Fahrenheit451, otherwise this is a red herring.

--
John
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:21:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

2008/12/21 John Vandenberg:

>> It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.

> And if sanctioned by the organisation, which is possible, would extend
> to blocking the entire organisation, and putting the case to bed quite
> quickly.


Based on past behaviour, I think this would be the ideal outcome of
the present case.

If you want public expert opinion, I'd ask [[David Touretzky]]
([[User:Touretzky]]).


> But we _need_ Tom Smith to first explain why he believes that CoS knew
> that his username was Fahrenheit451, otherwise this is a red herring.


Because outing critics is something the CoS do as a matter of routine.
Again, ask Dave Touretzky.

Anything involving Scientology rapidly resembles Alice through the
Looking Glass with added gory CGI in short order. I'll try to help
back up my more on-the-face-of-it outrageous assertions.


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

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:26:51 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/21 John Vandenberg:
>
>>> It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.
>
>> And if sanctioned by the organisation, which is possible, would extend
>> to blocking the entire organisation, and putting the case to bed quite
>> quickly.
>
>
> Based on past behaviour, I think this would be the ideal outcome of
> the present case.
>
> If you want public expert opinion, I'd ask [[David Touretzky]]
> ([[User:Touretzky]]).
>
>
>> But we _need_ Tom Smith to first explain why he believes that CoS knew
>> that his username was Fahrenheit451, otherwise this is a red herring.
>
>
> Because outing critics is something the CoS do as a matter of routine.
> Again, ask Dave Touretzky.
>
> Anything involving Scientology rapidly resembles Alice through the
> Looking Glass with added gory CGI in short order. I'll try to help
> back up my more on-the-face-of-it outrageous assertions.

I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
understand why he thinks they knew the link.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:39:15 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

2008/12/21 John Vandenberg:

> I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
> know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
> The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
> understand why he thinks they knew the link.

You could just ask him :-) "We're investigating this in relation to
the current CoS case. We need to know ... to work out what action is
appropriate in this case. You can email me and I can email other arbs
individually if you're worried about information escaping." Something
like that.

Fahrenheit451 is a bit jumpy and paranoid about the CoS, as is Cirt.
This is for good reason: they go after critics in a bloody rabid
fashion. They actually got me fired from a job once. (Being a critic
had helped me *get* a job earlier, with a boss tolerant-to-encouraging
of me working on the website at work ;-) ) So try to be gentle and
reassuring.

I understand Dave Touretzky is way busy at present. But for general
CoS methods, you could really do with reading this interview with
[[Tory Christman]], a featured article on Wikinews by Cirt.
High-quality work like this is why the CoS are so desperate in the
present case to *throw any mud they can* to see if any can be made to
stick.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/YouTube_accoun...itics_suspended

Tory used to work for the CoS doing the sockpuppet account setups,
during the era of the [[sporgery]]. She knows precisely what they do
and how. If you look at this case and look at the checkuser record,
you *will* see parallels to the present case.


[it occurs to me that I should write up the non-private portions of
these emails to put publicly on the case. The question is whether
saying what the checkuser evidence has revealed to other checkers so
far - CoS IPs, massive geographical changes in IP, etc - would be (a)
a Foundation privacy violation (b) considered somehow unfair on en:wp
in some way. But I shall try to get writing stuff up. In my COPIOUS
free time.]


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

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:57:00 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

Is there previous discussion of Jossi's alleged outing threats? I thought
that he was already outed because Smeeglova was tied to a known individual,
or am I mistaken? Where have these threats been discussed?

Jossi has posted a retirement message on his talk page. Durova has a
summary of their history, which looks accurate to me, but I haven't looked
at it in-depth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/S.../Jossi_evidence

As a declaration of personal biases, I think the many of the
anti-Scientologists on Wikipedia are no less COI and biased than Jossi is
sometimes alleged to be. That said, I've been impressed with Cirt; (s)he's
often broken with the more extreme anti-Scientologists, and I think (s)he
makes a good faith effort toward NPOV.

CHL
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Sat 30th July 2011, 6:16pm
Post #2


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:13:50 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:

> As a declaration of personal biases, I think the many of the
> anti-Scientologists on Wikipedia are no less COI and biased than Jossi is
> sometimes alleged to be. That said, I've been impressed with Cirt; (s)he's
> often broken with the more extreme anti-Scientologists, and I think (s)he
> makes a good faith effort toward NPOV.


[editor hat on for a tick]

Speaking as the founder of WikiProject Scientology and a strident
critic with extremely strong opinions on the matter, I must say that
our Scientologist contributors have helped make our
Scientology-related articles better and more NPOV, even if their edits
tend not to stand. The trouble is when they pull crap like this.

WIkipedia's writing on Scientology is a resource that never really
existed before - it's an example of why (in my opinion) NPOV is
Wikipedia's greatest innovation, far more radical than just letting
anyone edit the website. Before, you'd have pro-Scientology
information sorely lacking in matters of profound concern, and
critical information that was detailed and well-referenced but so
bitter it was all but unreadable.

(This is why the attacks then shift to severe querulousness on the
sources, and attempts to get those arbitrated against. Think of
Wikipedia as a game, and the CoS OSA operatives as people tasked to
win that game for Ron.)

And I know just what you mean about the critics *headdesk* Many lose
sight of NPOV because they're that pissed off. Which is
understandable, but not helpful in this context.


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

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:24:37 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:

> Is there previous discussion of Jossi's alleged outing threats? I thought
> that he was already outed because Smeeglova was tied to a known individual,
> or am I mistaken? Where have these threats been discussed?

The Smee connection wasn't public until quite recently. Jossi was
trying to hold this over Cirt should he ever become an admin. (He
did, and Jossi didn't follow through on his threats.)

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

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:35:10 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/21 John Vandenberg :
>
>> I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
>> know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
>> The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
>> understand why he thinks they knew the link.
>
> You could just ask him :-) "We're investigating this in relation to
> the current CoS case. We need to know ... to work out what action is
> appropriate in this case. You can email me and I can email other arbs
> individually if you're worried about information escaping." Something
> like that.

I'm on the road shortly, so .. no can do. Someone else?

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:57:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

2008/12/21 John Vandenberg :
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2008/12/21 John Vandenberg :

>>> I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
>>> know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
>>> The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
>>> understand why he thinks they knew the link.

>> You could just ask him :-) "We're investigating this in relation to
>> the current CoS case. We need to know ... to work out what action is
>> appropriate in this case. You can email me and I can email other arbs
>> individually if you're worried about information escaping." Something
>> like that.

> I'm on the road shortly, so .. no can do. Someone else?


Should be a 2008 sitting arb.


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

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:59:36 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> 2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:
>
> > Is there previous discussion of Jossi's alleged outing threats? I
> thought
> > that he was already outed because Smeeglova was tied to a known
> individual,
> > or am I mistaken? Where have these threats been discussed?
>
>
> The Smee connection wasn't public until quite recently. Jossi was
> trying to hold this over Cirt should he ever become an admin. (He
> did, and Jossi didn't follow through on his threats.)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
Well, he didn't need to because Kelly Martin outed him on WR. For what it's
worth, Yellow Monkey said that it seemed like an open secret anyway.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ber/021691.html

When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
haven't found the thread.

CHL
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:07:13 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
> haven't found the thread.


Looking through my archive (cheers to Gmail), Durova emailed FT2 a
pile of stuff (as Office 2007 .docx) dated Fri, Mar 28, 2008 - I got a
copy too.

I'm now not sure (because I can't find them in my archive) if they in
fact went to the whole arbcom or just to FT2, so I probably have to
apologise for getting strident over the lack of action on these.

FT2 - do you remember getting these, and/or see them in your own archives?

I'd look on the arbcom-l private web archive, but searching the
archive is an exercise in pain.


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

From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:36:23 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
> When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
> haven't found the thread.

There's some in "Prem Rawat Arbitration Case - Email from Cirt", some
in "Jossi vs Cirt". All the Prem Rawat threads from April.

IIRC we warned Jossi off in private (privately for Cirt's benefit),
concurrently with closing the case.

--
Stephen Bain
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:18:02 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> 2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:
> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
> > haven't found the thread.
>
>
> Looking through my archive (cheers to Gmail), Durova emailed FT2 a
> pile of stuff (as Office 2007 .docx) dated Fri, Mar 28, 2008 - I got a
> copy too.
>
> I'm now not sure (because I can't find them in my archive) if they in
> fact went to the whole arbcom or just to FT2, so I probably have to
> apologise for getting strident over the lack of action on these.
>
> FT2 - do you remember getting these, and/or see them in your own archives?
>
> I'd look on the arbcom-l private web archive, but searching the
> archive is an exercise in pain.
>
>
> - d.
>


Does anyone mind if I ask Durova if she can forward this material? Either
to the whole ArbCom, or just to me. I'm really curious about this. I have
a little experience in fringe religion things (including Scientology). It
strikes me as out of character for Jossi, but Durova has posted a long
history between these two users, so it merits a closer look.

This sort of intimidation does a lot to undermine our project, by detering
current and potential future contributors. We should have zero tolerance
for it, so I think we should look at the behavior even if it's now mooted
due to Jossi's apparent departure.

Thanks for the ref, Stephen. Why hasn't the archive search been updated
since January? Can this be fixed?

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:54:28 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Proxy checks on COFS/Scientology cases

Results of proxy checks, courtesy of East718, on Scientology case. I'll be
taking care of this tonight (have to go to work now). I give East the IPs,
without any other info, and he runs these for me as I don't have all the
neat special software that he does for this.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: east.718
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:38 AM
To: Randy Everette
Subject: Re: Proxy check

Hi R,

198.147.225.0/24 - not a proxy, but a free dialup ISP; softblocking will
result in some collateral damage

65.19.143.2 - confirmed, 65.19.128.0/18 = AS6939 = Hurricane Electric
Internet Services and should be hardblocked (alternatively,
65.19.143.0/29 if CU detects a lot of legit editors on the /18, it's
certainly possible)

67.212.67.74 - confirmed, 67.212.64.0/19 = AS10929 = Netelligent and
should be hardblocked

205.227.165.151 - 205.224.0.0/14 is WAY too large to scan, and it
belongs to Level 3, so it'll be providing connectivity for everything
from dial-up customers to corporate servers... 205.227.165.0/24 belongs
to the Church of Scientology and has mostly shared IP addresses and
webservers (ws.churchofscientology.org is one)... 205.227.165.151 is not
an open proxy

205.234.219.91 - confirmed, 205.234.128.0/17 = AS23352 = Server Central
and should be hardblocked

209.190.85.117 - wasn't able to connect; unlikely it's a compromised
server; no legit editor should be popping up on 209.190.85.0/24 though,
which should probably be hardblocked

202.64.77.113 - not an open proxy, but likely a shared transparent proxy
for customers of PacNet (HK/Singapore ISP)

212.227.29.132 - confirmed, 212.227.20.0/22, 212.227.24.0/22 and
212.227.28.0/23 should be hardblocked

Best of luck with whatever socks you're trying to stomp on. :-)

-Eric

On 12/21/2008 3:46 PM, Randy Everette wrote:
>
> East:
>
> I need some serious proxy checking done. I also suspect behind the
> scenes collaboration. Here we go:
>
> 198.147.225.x
>
> 198.147.225.33 especially
>
> 65.19.143.2 [City: Rancho Cordova, California]
>
> 67.212.67.74 Germany [City: ]
>
> 205.227.165.151 the whole range
>
> 205.234.219.91
>
> 209.190.85.117
>
> 202.64.77.113
>
> 202.64.77.113
>
> 212.227.29.132
>
> Thanks, let me know what you find.
>
> **r/**
>
> **Randy Everette**
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:23:25 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Jossi etc.

Forwarding per David Gerard's suggestion.

-Lise

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard
Date: Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Jossi etc.
To: Durova


Oh - and I'm carefully refraining from checkusering in this case myself.

I note the second IP is an Amazon Compute Cloud IP and should be
blocked in any case.


- d.



2008/12/22 Durova:
> Hi David,
>
> A couple of odd IP addresses showed up today and took an interest in me,
> along with 'v for vendetta'. Considering the timing of my ArbCom evidence
> and Jossi's departure, do you think it's worth a checkuser? Whois from
> different continents, but that's not too hard to fake if someone has the
> right skills.
>
> 83.203.93.165 (talk ? contribs ? WHOIS ? RDNS ? RBLs ? block user ? block
> log ? checkip)
> 67.202.1.188 (talk ? contribs ? WHOIS ? RDNS ? RBLs ? block user ? block
log
> ? checkip)
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...board/Incidents
>
> Best wishes,
> Lise
-----------

From: (Daniel Bryant)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:35:02 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

I would strongly suggest you do something to stop this POINTy nonsense by
John, who has disrupted this case enough with his patently offensive
proposals to date without pulling shit like this. I have told Cirt I have
forwarded it to you, so he's expecting an answer from *you*, rather than me.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cirt
Date: Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:07 AM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Daniel


Dear Daniel,

Jossi made a motion at the Scientology Arbitration Case to undelete my old
talk pages as Smee/Smeelgova. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=257423173
>

Three arbitrators weighed in already against this: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=257426165>,
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=257857383>,
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258252722
>

Now User:John254 has started a DRV thread on these deleted userpages: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...0talk:Smeelgova
>

Durova has already explained the situation to John254 at the DRV page, and
noted that his actions are bordering on WP:POINT. I would appreciate your
input on this.

Thank you for your time.

Yours,
Cirt

---
This e-mail was sent by user "Cirt" on the English Wikipedia to user
"Daniel". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:21:25 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

David Gerard and I have commented. If he persists, I have no problem
blocking him. An admin should close that DRV right away.

r/
Randy Everette
_____

> From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Bryant
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 5:05 PM
> To: arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

> I would strongly suggest you do something to stop this POINTy nonsense by
> John, who has disrupted this case enough with his patently offensive
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:03:10 +1000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On 12/22/08, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> >
> > 2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke :
> > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >
> > > When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but
> I
> > > haven't found the thread.
> >
> >
> > Looking through my archive (cheers to Gmail), Durova emailed FT2 a
> > pile of stuff (as Office 2007 .docx) dated Fri, Mar 28, 2008 - I got a
> > copy too.
> >
> > I'm now not sure (because I can't find them in my archive) if they in
> > fact went to the whole arbcom or just to FT2, so I probably have to
> > apologise for getting strident over the lack of action on these.
> >
> > FT2 - do you remember getting these, and/or see them in your own archives?
> >
> > I'd look on the arbcom-l private web archive, but searching the
> > archive is an exercise in pain.
> >
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
>
>
> Does anyone mind if I ask Durova if she can forward this material? Either
> to the whole ArbCom, or just to me. I'm really curious about this. I have
> a little experience in fringe religion things (including Scientology). It
> strikes me as out of character for Jossi, but Durova has posted a long
> history between these two users, so it merits a closer look.
>
> This sort of intimidation does a lot to undermine our project, by detering
> current and potential future contributors. We should have zero tolerance
> for it, so I think we should look at the behavior even if it's now mooted
> due to Jossi's apparent departure.
>
> Thanks for the ref, Stephen. Why hasn't the archive search been updated
> since January? Can this be fixed?

I am also interested in seeing this, as I have had a hand in opening
up this can of worms upside down.

For reference, here is the "Prem Rawat Arbitration Case - Email from
Cirt" thread

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/017949.html

And here is the "Jossi vs Cirt" thread split across two months and not
threaded normally.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/018022.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ril/018029.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ril/018031.html

This April thread is also relevant.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ril/018626.html

I'm certainly getting the impression that Jossi was throwing his
weight around, and even from reading only the Jossi/Cirt exchange it
seems likely that Jossi was not shy about this intent being to ensure
that Cirt was never resysoped. However I know many admins who will go
to similar lengths to ensure that certain contributors never obtain
sysop, for good or ill, and for varied reasons. Usually with more
tact. hrmph.gif

--
John Vandenberg
-------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:21:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

For what it's worth, I was aware of the Cirt = Smee/Smeelgova link within a
day or two of Cirt starting to edit. Anyone with familiarity of the
Scientology area would have picked it up almost immediately, although I'm
not quite sure why it came to my attention. The link was definitely an open
secret at the time I was developing evidence for the *Tango* case in
April/08.

Risker
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:07:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Wikipedia e-mail

Forwarding from Cirt by request.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: Cirt
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:01 PM
To: Rlevse
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Dear Rlevse,

When I reviewed Durova's evidence about Jossi
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/Scientology_arbitration/Jossi_evid
ence> before she published it on site, I was able to infer from an oblique
mention she had made that Jossi disclosed personal details to her about me,
without my prior permission. Of course Durova wanted to double check with me
first before posting her evidence on site, to make sure she was not saying
more than I had consented to.

I told her I had disclosed that information to Jossi in a private email when
we were discussing stuff that had nothing to do with Wikipedia - in my
earlier encounters with Jossi before I realized what a problem he was.

Needless to say, I am shocked and quite upset that he disclosed personal
details about myself "in real life" and my work to someone else in an email,
information I had told him on the assumption that it was private and
sensitive info and that he would keep my confidence.

Please forward this along to the active Arbitrators list.

Thank you for your time.

Yours,
Cirt
---
This e-mail was sent by user "Cirt" on the English Wikipedia to user
"Rlevse". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
-----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:51:24 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Who wants to do the drafting in RfAr/Scientology and RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino?

I would be glad to take on Cupertino if no one else volunteers (it's been a
couple of months since I've written a case). I hesitate a bit to suggest
that I do it because it's a pretty straightforward one-party case that could
be a good stepping stone if one of the new arbitrators wants to take it on.
On the other hand, the remedies probably will include some length of ban,
and I would like a certain heckler (not to drop Doc/Scott's name) to see
that yes I can actually write one of those if I have to.

In any event, we should move this one to voting as soon as the one week for
evidence presentation is finished.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:53:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

much appreciated Brad, I am swamped
Cas
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 03:03:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Suggest Cupertino be used as a simple case to walk some of the new
arbs (including me) through the process, though I'm sure we will all
develop our own styles.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 03:04:43 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Something like writing down your thoughts as you go through the
process of reviewing the case and drafting the proposal. Which pages
do you refer to for boilerplate stuff, and which direction do you
approach things from?

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:12:48 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

I'd love to handle the G.-M case, though it could also be a group effort,
since it looks open-and-shut to me. Writing the decisions is something I'd
like to do as I get more experienced.
~W
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:15:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

I'm spoiled because I have most of the precedents in my head after doing too
many of these things, but there are three basic tricks I can think of for
finding relevant language from past cases when that is needed:

1. There is a page with some standard clauses and wordings posted on the
arb-wiki.

2. There is a page on-wiki [[WP:RfAr/C]] listing completed cases with a
short summary of the remedies adopted. One can scan this looking for a
similar type of case to the one being discussed.

3. The proposals on the workshop will often refer to relevant prior
decisions.

As for direction of approach, it varies from one case to another and one
arbitrator to another, so I'm hesitant to lay down any firm rules.
Cupertino will be the rare case in which all the statements and evidence and
workshop proposals can be reviewed in a half hour. Most cases are not like
that.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:35:37 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Following up on this as Kirill doesn't officially become
<s>nagger-in-chief</s> coordinator until tomorrow. I know Wizardman
volunteered to do a draft in RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino, but I don't recall
anyone volunteering in Scientology. Anyone interested?

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:37:28 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:

> Following up on this as Kirill doesn't officially become
> <s>nagger-in-chief</s> coordinator until tomorrow. I know Wizardman
> volunteered to do a draft in RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino, but I don't recall
> anyone volunteering in Scientology. Anyone interested?


And if you are, please feel free to list yourself at
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordi...ses_in_progress

Kirill
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:16:54 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>
> Following up on this as Kirill doesn't officially become
> <s>nagger-in-chief</s> coordinator until tomorrow. I know Wizardman
> volunteered to do a draft in RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino, but I don't recall
> anyone volunteering in Scientology. Anyone interested?
>
>
> And if you are, please feel free to list yourself at
> http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordi...ses_in_progress

I've taken it and listed meself.

Roger
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:08:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Emergency desysopping etc

I'm beavering away on Scientology but once that's out of the way does
anyone mind if I try to fuse the two existing closely related proposals:

http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_board#Agenda item:
Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
<http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_board#Agenda%20item:%20Determine%20procedure%20for%20emergency%20rights%20removal>
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propos...l_of_privileges

into one concise proposal?


Roger
-----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:46:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] PHG

It's not like a recusal for conflict of interest ... but for the cases that
started before the new arbitrators joined, they have the choice of whether
to be active or inactive. (Well, theoretically, we all have that in any
case....) Just check your status on the proposed decision talkpage and let
the Clerks know if it needs to be changed, one way or the other. This goes
for everyone who hasn't already voted, on the Fringe Science case as well
and I believe Scientology as well.

Newyorkbrad
-----------

From: (Chin-Yu Chen)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:17:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Cirt recently e-mailed me concerns; I wish to ask for what should be done
regarding this complaint.

Full text as follows:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: cirt tric
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Chin-Yu Chen , cirt tric


Dear Penwhale,

Thank you for your response.

There is a second issue that should also be addressed by a Clerk of the
arbitration committee in the Scientology case:

Both Jayen466 and Justallofthem have made posts to the Evidence page of the
case in an essay-like format, unsupported by any Diffs or secondary sources.
I request that these be removed or moved to the talk page by a Clerk of the
arbitration committee.

A while back, an expert on Scientology, Tory Christman, posted expert
evidence in the Scientology case on the evidence page, in an essay-format <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=260278540
>

In response, the SPA User:Justallofthem complained that Tory Christman's
evidence was in an essay-format and unsupported by Diffs or evidence to
secondary sources: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=260457828>
Tory Christman later removed her own evidence section for other reasons: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=261206536
>

Now, Justallofthem and Jayen466 have both recently posted their own
essay-format posts to the Evidence page of the Scientology case, unsupported
by Diffs or other secondary sources: Justallofthem's post <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=265427482>,
Jayen466's post: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=267201742
>

This certainly seems hypocritical in light of Justallofthem's prior
complaint.

In any event, both of their evidence sections contain posts by them in an
essay-format, unsupported by any secondary sources or Diffs. I request that
you look into this and perhaps remove those posts or move them to the talk
page.

I have emailed this to you instead of posting a request on site, as
unfortunately both Jayen466 and Justallofthem tend to use my onsite posts in
this Arbitration case as an excuse to escalate drama and snipe back at me. I
wanted to avoid this possible escalation of drama, and so I chose to email
you instead.

Thank you for your time.

Yours,
Cirt
-----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Chin-Yu Chen wrote:
> Cirt recently e-mailed me concerns; I wish to ask for what should be
> done regarding this complaint.
>

Durova has also expressed similar concerns on AC/C/N, asking clerks to
clean things up a bit. I've taken a look and I'm inclined to agree.

Show of hand quick vote on leaving a note for the clerks:

"Clerks, please help maintain the clarity and relevance of evidence in
''Scientology'' by moving inappropriate commentary to the talk page,
paying particular attention to sections that do not provide relevant
evidence. ~~~, ''for the Committee'', ~~~~~"

? This will give the clerks the appropriate leeway and a diff to point at.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:53:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I'd like all this stuff removed. (It's currently stranding at 80 A4
pages of "evidence" so the more pruning the better.) Anyone object?


Roger
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:02:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I'd like it removed and that note posted, support both moves.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:27:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Randy Everette wrote:
> I'd like it removed and that note posted, support both moves.
>
> r/
> Randy Everette
>

Given the fact that this is basically uncontroversial, I've asked the
clerks to proceed. (In my own name, though, not as the committee).

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:14:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I am recused in this particular case, so no comment there. However, I would
like to explicitly encourage clerks to clean up evidence pages in this
fashion (removing non-evidence and general commentary to the evidence talk
page) and as well as encourage clerks to aggressively redact/refactor
personal attacks, soapboxing, etc. I believe that arb pages need more
aggressive management to cut down/out the nonsense.

Pete (Vassyana)
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:24:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

2009/1/31 Peter Casey

> I am recused in this particular case, so no comment there. However, I would
> like to explicitly encourage clerks to clean up evidence pages in this
> fashion (removing non-evidence and general commentary to the evidence talk
> page) and as well as encourage clerks to aggressively redact/refactor
> personal attacks, soapboxing, etc. I believe that arb pages need more
> aggressive management to cut down/out the nonsense.
>
> Pete (Vassyana)
>
>
I am inactive on this case; however, I agree that Pete's comments are good
general principles for *all* cases. Evidence pages are for evidence; they
aren't intended to be a sanctioned opportunity to deride opponents or
publish one's op-ed piece. I'd be in favour of giving clerks more latitude
in this direction. This also speaks, to some extent, to the issue of
increasing the number of clerks, because monitoring of articles will become
more labour intensive.

This might be an area where comments on past experience from our ex-arbs
might be useful.

(As an aside, I'd like to see a spot on the evidence page where we, as arbs,
can ask neutral observers to develop evidence. I think of the charts and
graphs that Frank and Carcharoth have developed, fact-based and objective,
and would like to encourage similar contributions from others.)

Risker
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:48:07 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cumulus Clouds matter

Quick thoughts:

1. The first thing to do is to bollock Raul, then we can disclose stuff
to the functionaries list. Can you write a strong draft bollocking?
(It'll take 24 hrs for everyone here to approve it.)

2. There's a load of stuff I need to write up to supplement to my
initial timeline/report, covering October/November activity, which makes
it even clearer. I haven't got time to do this immediately as I must get
the Scientology thing finished but to avoid double-handling it's
probably best if I do it.


Roger
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:55:01 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Wow. This is amazing. I don't know that ArbCom has *ever* done this
before, but we all seem to agree that it should be done.

Question: what happens when parties fight with the clerks, insisting that it
*is* evidence? I always assumed that the potential for semantic fights is
the reason ArbCom didn't do it before.

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:10:42 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

When parties fight the clerks or are otherwise disruptive we let the clerks
handle. They usually get blocked.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:15:50 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

It can't be too difficult to define evidence: statement of facts
supported by times, dates, and diffs. Rebuttals of statements of fact
should also be with diffs.
I'm bored with opinion and speculation.


Roger
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:49:40 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Tell me, is Jimbo's section in the Mantanmoreland
case<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jimbo_Wales>evidence?
I didn't think so at the time, but I somehow doubt the clerks
would remove it.

This is a politically easy case because the "evidence" is posted by putative
Scientologists with low status in the community. I only want to take this
course this if we do it all the way. We should agree that the words of
Jimbo himself would be removed without diffs. No breaks for vested admins.

Frank
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 00:59:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I posted a narrative account in the Betacommand case back in May or
June 2008, cos I didn't have time to do diffs. Not ideal, I know, but
we shouldn't totally discourage reasonable stuff, even if diffless. It
can provide leads or insights that diffs don't always do. And clerks
should actively *help* people, not just enforce the rules. Help
explain how diffs work, how to link to a section of a block log (what
do you mean you don't know how to do that?) or a run of logged
actions, in a permanent way. And help people preset their evidence in
a better way. Adversarial clerking may do more damage than good.

In my opinion, a designated arbitrator should also watch over cases as
evidence is provided, and help guide those presenting evidence.
Working with the clerks.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 00:59:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

present, not preset
-----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:20:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I would just move things from the main evidence page to the evidence talk
page, where general comments and observations are more appropriate. Nothing
would be lost in terms of information or posts, barring the need to
refactor/redact personal attacks and the like. I would be uncomfortable with
removing the comments completely in most cases. My thought was this was
allow us to keep the evidence page focused specifically on evidence.
Insightful commentaries, smart analysis or effective rebuttals would still
be available for consideration.

Pete
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:45:40 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January to
mid-February 2009)

I wish some of our pending cases would get resolved before moving on to
introspection.

I know people are signed up for Scientology and date linking, but I'm pretty
well-acquainted with those. Maybe I could jointly write one of them with
the assignees them to speed up the process. Me and Randy did that with PHG,
and I liked the results.

No objection to asking functionaries though.

Frank
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:53:30 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January
to mid-February 2009)

I've got the principles and FOF for Scientology in advanced draft state.
I was waiting for the evidence questions that Durova raised to be resolved.

Roger
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Sat 30th July 2011, 7:16pm
Post #3


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:42:13 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January to
mid-February 2009)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I've got the principles and FOF for Scientology in advanced draft state.
> I was waiting for the evidence questions that Durova raised to be resolved.

If you have substantial parts drafted already you should put them on
the case's workshop. If further issues do arise from the community
looking at that, you'll be able to deal with them at the same time as
waiting for Durova.

--
Stephen Bain
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:14:01 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January to
mid-February 2009)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> I wish some of our pending cases would get resolved before moving on to
> introspection.

Yes. I do try to finish up other business before doing that sort of
stuff. I'll wait a bit anyway. Still trying to find the time to work
out what happened in that Eastern European scuffle, without just
agreeing with everyone else.

> I know people are signed up for Scientology and date linking, but I'm pretty
> well-acquainted with those. Maybe I could jointly write one of them with
> the assignees them to speed up the process. Me and Randy did that with PHG,
> and I liked the results.

I offered to do this for Ayn Rand, but that's the only pending case
I'm not recused or inactive on. To be frank, SemBubenny shouldn't be a
long case, but I do worry about date delinking and Scientology. What I
will try and aim to do is be active on the workshop page for the Ayn
Rand case, and help with the proposed decision - whoever is doing
that. Where is that list anyway?

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] updae on Justallofthem

I see YM has posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=201977929

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nban_conditions

do folks more familiar with this one think its time for a ban yet? Just thought I'd give folks a heads up as there is stuff flying everywhere.
Cas
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:59:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] updae on Justallofthem

well, he's a major party in the scientology case, so if Roger wants to throw
that in as an FoF/remedy, then that's fine.
~W
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:06:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] updae on Justallofthem

I agree that this is best addressed as part of Rfar/Scientology, which
is hopefully moving to a proposed decision pretty soon. (ALL the
pending cases are hopefully moving to proposed decisions pretty soon.)
Note that Bishonen states on the evidence page that she is discussing
the checkuser result with YellowMonkey; not sure if that will lead to
any new info, but I'm keeping an eye on the evidence page.

Newyorkbrad
-----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:45:25 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

Hi,

A shortage of clerking at the Scientology case has made the evidence and
workshop pages very hard to follow. I have posted three requests for
assistance to the clerks' noticeboard in the last few weeks, and Coren
supported the request, but nothing has actually been done to fix the
problems.

A disruptive sockpuppeteer John254/Kristen Eriksen has recently been
community sitebanned. He posted extensively to the case workshop playing
both sides of the fence with his two accounts. At the case evidence page,
some of the participants have been posting evidence about editors who are
not named parties to the case. Also, some editors have posted commentary
about the evidence to the evidence page itself; a fair amount of that could
be moved to the talk page.

So it's understandable that Bishonen overlooked my description of
Justallofthem's brief community siteban.

*This is not an isolated incident, but the latest manifestation of a
longstanding pattern of behavior. In March 2008 Justallofthem (as
Justanother) was nearly sitebanned for confirmed
sockpuppetry<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Justanother>,
block evasion, gross personal attacks, and cross-project wikihounding of
Cirt. Consensus at AN was to siteban, and he was actually indeffed with a
ban template added to his user talk, until a single administrator unblocked.
*
Relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=270511171
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ser:Justanother
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._checkuser_case

Bishonen's statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=201925997

The wisdom of using broken English and a joke account to discuss a siteban
is dubious, but Bishonen clearly did impose a limit of one account upon this
editor when she unblocked him. Her assertion that a group of partisan
editors tried to force a ban is mistaken: after the ban proposal was already
on the table I suggested a milder remedy, and a variety of uninvolved
editors and admins weighed in on the discussion including Jpgordon, a former
arbitrator.

Bishonen was the sole dissenter two and a half days after the indef was
implemented, and might have been better off posting her objections and
recusing from direct use of the tools. Her own prior involvement with this
editor arguably raises more serious doubts about her objectivity than about
most of the people who weighed in at the community ban discussion.

Justanother and Bishonen had extensive prior interaction: he had made 72
edits to her user talk:
http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/To...n.wikipedia.org

Then he created the JustaHulk account originally to banter with her, in
imitation of Bishzilla. The account's first edit outside his own userspace
was to her user talk. She responded in the same bantering vein and he
posted there more often than to any other administrator's user space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113585490
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._at_wrong_Justa
http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/To...n.wikipedia.org
http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/To...n.wikipedia.org

Administrators are welcome to submit evidence regarding editors they know,
of course, but it is unseemly to use the tools to overturn an otherwise
unanimous siteban after this degree of familiarity. As mentioned last
month, I saw serious problems with her use of the Bishzilla account. This
particular concern was one of them.

I will gladly respond to any questions or concerns regarding this matter.

Very respectfully,
Lise
-----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:15:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

This case needs to get to a decision soon. It was opened at the
beginning of December. Fortunately, some of the original issues (e.g.
Jossi's editing of Scientology related pages) have dropped away.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:36:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

Dear Durova,

Thank-you for your e-mail. We are considering the points you have made
(or rather, my colleagues are, as I am not active on this case). I
will try and chase up the clerking requests and see what has happened
there.

Regarding the other points you make, it would help us if you could say
what you are asking us to do, and whether this is a formal submission
of evidence for the case, something to be dealt with outside the case,
or something else again.

Best wishes,
Carcharoth
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:16:58 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

Thanks for your reply, Carcharoth.

Partly I was afraid of my evidence getting lost in the unclerked case.
Since Bishonen challenges the integrity of the ban discussion it became
relevant to point out that she doesn't arrive with a clean slate. She's
retired the Bishzilla account, though, so that isn't likely to remain a
continuing problem. I am not asking the Committee to add her to the case,
just providing background that became relevant when she posted and which I
hope will never need to be mentioned again. Due to the potential for drama
etc., email seemed to be the best option. She does a lot of good for
Wikipedia and I wish her well.

I have posted a siteban proposal to the workshop regarding Justallofthem, on
the basis of the checkuser finding a new recent sock and the unblock
condition restricting him to one account. Continuing disruption also
weighed as a factor.

Trusting the checkuser was correct, and willing to revise other checkusers
disagree about the strength of the finding. Justallofthem disputes the
result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...nking_this_over

As a working premise, I regard the report as correct. His responses look a
bit dodgy.

Best regards,
Lise
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:10:55 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

As I mentioned, I'm currently working on writing this up. It is a
complicated case, with for example 70 A4 pages of evidence. I have a
sprawling draft which I am concentrating on reducing it to its
essentials so that will hopefully it will pass without too many hiccups.


Roger
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

Much appreciated Roger
Cas
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:58:04 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

If you post to the Workshop page explaining this, and promising some
drafted bits for discussion fairly soon, that would probably go down
well. Just don't tie yourself down to an arbitrary deadline. For
complex cases, sometimes taking the time needed is best.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:49:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

Thank you for the message.

I don't yet know what my colleagues on this list will say but, from the
briefest glance, I am curious to know why you need so many. For example,
Voxpopulis and Spandextrous are both posting on Scientology-related topics.


Roger Davies


semi transgenic wrote:
> In the interests of partial transparency please note that users:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Semitransgenic
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Measles
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Voxpopulis
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spandexterous
>
> are one and the same.
>
> None of these accounts have been used in a manner that violates sock
> puppet guidelines and this is how it shall remain.
>
> Thanks
>
> ST
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:13:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

Thanks. I've circulated your explanation to the list and we will be in
touch shortly.

Roger Davies

semi transgenic wrote:
> Hi Roger
>
> Spandexterous is dead.
>
> Voxpopulis is new, and it is precisely because I am posting on a
> Scientology related article that I opened the account.
>
> Measles is a secondary account I opened mainly for grunt work such as
> tagging, as can be seen by the edit history.
>
> Semitransgenic is my main account, which I have not been using of
> late, because I got in trouble with my girlfriend for wasting time on
> wiki, so she no monitors it now.
>
> I hope this clarifies my position.
>
> thanks.
----------

From: (YellowMonkey)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:08:43 +1030
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

I got Nishkid to have another look and he said that it was pretty obvious
that Truthtell=Justallofthem
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:47:36 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

Thank you very much for double checking.

-Lise
-----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:43:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

The use of more then two accounts, whether okay or not, always raises a red
flag to me. Even if the one is dead, are three accounts necessary?
~W
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:50:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

That many accounts is suspicious, agreed on that.

r/
Randy Everette
------------

From: (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:30:59 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

On 2/16/09, Randy Everette wrote:
>
> That many accounts is suspicious, agreed on that.
>
Plus the editing in scientology related topics. I would guess that he
notified us because of the frequent edit-warring on scientology making a
checkuser more likely.

--
Sam Blacketer
-----------

From:(Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:35:44 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

He has provided an explanation.

I suggest we tell him to
1. mark Spandexterous as retired and link it to Voxpopulis
2. mark Measles as an alias of Semtransgenic and vice versa

Roger
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:49:03 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Peter Casey wrote:
> I think a reply for more information would be appropriate here. We could
> note that Measles seems to be a similar account to Semitransgenic, and the
> same for Spandexterous and Voxpopulis. Then, ask why the socks are needed.
> It may also be wise to ask if he has any other sockpuppets and why he has
> decided to disclose these socks to ArbCom.

The email he sent to Roger explains this sufficiently I think

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>>
>> He has provided an explanation.
>>
>> I suggest we tell him to
>> 1. mark Spandexterous as retired and link it to Voxpopulis
>> 2. mark Measles as an alias of Semtransgenic and vice versa

This looks reasonable.


Due to the COFS aspect, and the unusual creation of Voxpopulis to
participate in the "Scientology in Germany" GA, I have done a
Checkuser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...2170222&limit=2

He is on a single very static IP at <redacted>, and all
edits are accounted for on that one IP address.

<redact more speculation about where this person lives/works>

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:10:26 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Prem Rawat 2

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Risker wrote:
> For the record, one of Will Beback's allegations about Jossi is that he
> is/was using socks; this is a recurrent allegation (it was made in El Reg in
> early 2008) and FT2 carried out a checkuser in February 2008 looking at
> Jossi, 65.74.227.127, 66.92.51.106, and 75.82.196.239. I did not re-run the
> CU on any of these. I'm inclined to ask him if he found anything
> noteworthy. Should a new CU be run on Jossi now?

I didnt see that post before I emailed the list.

I've also heard of it before, and Cirt told me that Will was building
evidence of it in relation to the Scientology case.

It is a serious allegation, and since it is public, it requires
investigation. Will really should have evidence before he posts that.
I think one of us should ask him if he has evidence he intends to
present if we open a case.

I'd like to hear FT2's opinion on it, or perhaps it is in the mailing
list archives.

--
John Vandenberg
------------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:09:46 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM, YellowMonkey wrote:
> I got Nishkid to have another look and he said that it was pretty obvious
> that Truthtell=Justallofthem

Hi guys,

Could you describe the links between the accounts. Are we talking
100% confident; if not .. how confident?

Also, are these the only results used?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=1
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=8

--
John Vandenberg
-------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:23:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Prem Rawat 2

I've commented and asked Will Beback to submit the sockpuppetry evidence to
the committee using the list email. I'd like to get an experienced
non-committee checkuser to carry out a fresh CU; Alison comes to mind, but
Avi has several months under his belt, and Versageek has been doing CU and
#cvn work for some time. Suggestions?

Risker
------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:42:43 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Date delinking injunction

You know, the sad part of it is that not a one of them would tolerate such
bloat and flights of fancy in any article they edit. If I didn't know
better, I'd say the lot of them were deliberately being obtuse.

John, please let's move your proposals along over onto the main wiki.
Resolving this case, and the Scientology one, should be our top two
priorities. Indeed, we should have *all* of our current open cases resolved
before the end of the month.

Risker
------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:19:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Prem Rawat 2

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:20 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>> We have a RFAR for Prem Rawat.
>
> I might as well mention now that, should this request be accepted, I'd
> like to draft the decision in it, having drafted the decision in the
> first case, unless of course another one of the newbies would like to
> cut their teeth on it.

Not really. You are welcome to this one! I should say that I struggle
to engage with the topics in cases like Ayn Rand and Prem Rawat and
Scientology, or indeed any cases where the editors in question are
really persistent.

What am I saying? All arbitration cases involve "persistent" editors.
Anyway, my view is to try and identify the reasonable editors and to
kick everyone else out, while trying not to turn the editing
population at the article(s) into a wasteland or a population of one
(or too few).

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:51:38 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM, YellowMonkey wrote:
>> I got Nishkid to have another look and he said that it was pretty obvious
>> that Truthtell=Justallofthem
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Could you describe the links between the accounts. Are we talking
> 100% confident; if not .. how confident?
>
> Also, are these the only results used?
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=1
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=8


Ping!?

--
John Vandenberg
------------

From: (Nishkid)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:50:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem

I can't speak for the editing behavior, but on the technical side, both
users were editing from the same ISP in the same city (Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida). Coupled with suspicions that both editors were pushing the same
type of POV, I concluded that it was highly likely that they were in fact
the same person.

~Nishkid64
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:41:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification

There's been some discussion so if no one objects in the next 24 hours
or so, I'll write and tell him to link the accounts as described below.
Which may get him into trouble with his girlfriend but hey ..... smile.gif

Roger

Roger Davies wrote:
> He has provided an explanation.
>
> I suggest we tell him to
> 1. mark Spandexterous as retired and link it to Voxpopulis
> 2. mark Measles as an alias of Semtransgenic and vice versa
>
> Roger
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:47:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] scientology case

I'll post the draft principles on the arbwiki shortly. Eyes would be
appreciated. I'm trying to keep this simple as it's very complicated.

The FoF will take some time to support with diffs etc.

The problem with this case is that it's like the fringe science one but
more so. The remedies might be difficult to get consensus on. The
essential difficulty is that Wikipedia has long tolerated people editing
on religious topics close to their hearts but the only solution for
scientology is to topic-ban everyone except the dispassionate. Thoughts?


Roger
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:51:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] scientology case

If they can't behave, whatever their passionate topic is, ban them. WE're
not here to coddle the ill-behaved, we're here to build a harmonious
encyclopedia building environment.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:59:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

I've posted this:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...oposed_decision

I've worked very hard to keep it short and straightforward so it
concentrates on only the core issues. Have I overdone it?

Roger
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:31:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

Does anyone object if I ask Will Beback to post a suitable digest of the
Jossi socking evidence as part of his Scientology evidence?

Roger
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:08:19 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

I don't see why it's necessary. If he *was* socking, my sanction for Jossi
would be desysop, which is the same thing that we should have already
applied to him (that is, require him to run for RFA if he comes back).

I have said several times that we should have a clerk add footnote 1 to this
page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Former_administrators> and move
on. I don't think we even need a finding in the Scientology case, but I
wish we had done this almost two months ago so that Will Beback and others
wouldn't continue to gather evidence (which seems questionable in any case).

I don't think Jossi fits well into either Scientology or Prem 2, and the
remedy is already decided. Lets not clutter these cases; let's drop a
footnote and move on.

Frank
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:28:02 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

Yep, that's another solution.

Roger
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:01:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

An alternative would be to adopt this finding in one of the cases

{{Admin|Jossi}} voluntarily resigned his adminship on [date], when he stated
he was retiring from Wikipedia. At that time, this arbitration case in
which he is named as a party was pending, and allegations of administrator
misconduct had been made against him. Accordingly, should Jossi return to
editing and wish to regain adminship, he may do so only by appeal to this
committee or a new request for adminship. See, [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration/Philwelch]].

This simply restates the rule without embroiling us in the details of the
underlying allegations.

Newyorkbrad
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:06:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

That's a very good way of doing it. Thank you for the suggestion.

Roger
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:15:11 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

Yeah, this finding is good. It would also put Will Beback and others on
notice that this is resolved. Looking into socks from three years ago
strikes me as an unfortunate use of volunteer time.

Frank
-----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

But then again, serious funny business influencing these types of articles on (whatever we wish to classify Prem and Scientology as) over years and the numbers of people that read them, makes me think this is way more important than some of the focus on civility.

I think of this all the time when I walk around hospitals I work at and see nurses etc. reading wikipedia pages here and there on medications and things (i.e. the info wp has on pages which can actually have an impact on the way people live)
Cas
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:16:35 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Cas Liber wrote:

<snip>

> I think of this all the time when I walk around hospitals I work at and see
> nurses etc. reading wikipedia pages here and there on medications and things
> (i.e. the info wp has on pages which can actually have an impact on the way
> people live)

If any nurse or doctor treating me turns up with a Wikipedia page
printout, I'm booting them out of the door before they can even open
their mouth! I want them to use medical manuals and textbooks! I'm
having some dental work done tomorrow, so I'll keep an eye out for the
Wikipedia screen in the corner...

Carcharoth
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:37:22 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Yeah, this finding is good.? It would also put Will Beback and others on
> notice that this is resolved.? Looking into socks from three years ago
> strikes me as an unfortunate use of volunteer time.

I also like NYB's suggestion, but I doubt that it will cause Will to
stop looking for a Prem Rawat 2 ruling that Jossi was socking. I
think we will need to tell him more explicitly that the matter is
closed, or being investigated by the committee.

--
John Vandenberg
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:22:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sembubenny

Can whoever hasn't voted here:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed_decision#Enforcement_
by_desysop

Go vote so we'll know which way this on the fence ruling will go?

Then we can close this and move on to Scientology and Date delinking.
Scientology is the only one left from LAST year.

r/
Randy Everette
------------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:00:34 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] SemBubenny recusal

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Wizardman wrote:
> I'd be reluctant to do it, personally. I understand the rationale
> completely, it's just that un-recusing this late in the game might look like
> a behind-the-scenes political move to one party or another. That's just my
> reasoning though, other arbs may disagree.
> ~W

Likewise.

I only needed to recuse on the Fringe science case due to SA, and
could have joined in except on the aspects that relate to him, but it
isnt worth the drama.

For the Scientology case, I have not decided yet, as I did offer to
nominate Cirt for adminship on Wikisource and do work closely with
Cirt .. so that has been on my mind.

I was unsure whether to recuse on the E&C3 case, because DGG and
Dstretch were listed as parties and my recusal promise did roughly
require me to recuse in that case, but that wasnt my intention. CHL
suggested I recuse and adjust my recusal promise, which I did two days
ago.

For the West Bank case, I offered for any party to ask me to recuse.

--
John Vandenberg
------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:15:18 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] New cases - drafting arbs needed?

Stephen Bain has volunteered for the Prem Rewat case. As to the
others...well, I don't mind riding herd on the arb pages themselves and
working with the clerks.

As to drafting, for the record I'd prefer that people only be signed up for
one at a time if possible, so that they aren't distracted by new cases when
trying to wrap up old ones. I note neither Newyorkbrad nor Kirill have
written a decision in three months - maybe it's time to bring them back in?

We really need to get Scientology and Date Delinking on-wiki now.
Scientology is now 11 weeks since acceptance, and Date delinking is 7
weeks. Pete mentioned that he will have Ayn Rand done this weekend, but we
may need to pick that ball up on his behalf should he resign.

Risker
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:28:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting

Can we it part of the standing orders/instructions that headers in cases
*aren't* linked and that links in headers will be automatically removed
by clerks? As it stands, it's very difficult linking to evidence. I'm
going to ask them to do this in Scientology anyway ...

Roger
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:42:13 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Can we it part of the standing orders/instructions that headers in cases
> *aren't* linked and that links in headers will be automatically removed
> by clerks? As it stands, it's very difficult linking to evidence. I'm
> going to ask them to do this in Scientology anyway ...

I would like a lot more formatting type clerking going on.

removing "User:" from RFAR statements
changing special:undelete link to use {{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}} (whatever it is)
shortening section names
etc

--
John Vandenberg
------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:47:41 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting

I wouldn't argue with any of that.

Incidentally, I think decisions would be a lot easier to read if they
didn't have {{user|XXX}} within the actual text. Identifying the editor
could go between the header and the text, like a hatnote.

Roger
------------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:03:32 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting

By all means make a list of things like that and pass them to the
clerks. I don't think anyone will object. But it won't get done unless
someone tells the clerks that they are being expected to do this
(though some of it is done already).

When linking to evidence pages, beware of later changes that may be
made, including courtesy blankings and header changes. Diffs are good,
but linking to sections of page versions at the time the proposed
decision is posted is even better - those links are unlikely to
change.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:21:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought

I'm struggling with this. The problem is this: the warring is
essentially constant bickering between pro- and anti-Scientology
editors, with radicalised but neutral editors piling in on both sides,
apparently on a personal like/dislike basis.

Although the evidence runs to 100+ pages of quarto, and both sides think
their diffs support all of sort of heinous things, having been through
it in detail three times and checked most of the diffs, the reality is
it's pretty thin stuff.

Most of the arguing is about sources, with few diffs that are really
actionable. There's not even any real incivility, apart from the
occasional snipe.

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.

Thoughts?

Roger
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:25:53 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought

Does topic area probation work in cases like this?

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:34:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought

Dunno. The thing is there are about a dozen editors that probably need
taking out of the frame: it's similar to date delinking, people have got
entrenched and can't/won't really move on. (I think the basic problem is
that after a while editors start getting off on the arguing: it's more
challenging/stimulating than article writing.)


Roger
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:41:34 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought

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.
>

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.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:48:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought

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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Sat 30th July 2011, 9:00pm
Post #4


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



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_case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nolley/Workshop

Search 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_Vandenberg

I 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_decision

I'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=258396822
This is a rewrite, not the removal of sourced text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258435174
Technically fits the finding. First he posted to the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=237140251
He 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=...=23375392219:51
Oversighted. (Can someone illuminate as to why?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258354591
Essentialy, 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.htm
The 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.html

As 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=255569111
Like 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=233753922

The 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=277486523

Actually, 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 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 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 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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Sat 30th July 2011, 9:16pm
Post #5


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:16:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt

If Scientologists appear to be "destabilizing" the articles, it's probably
because all of them are written with a heavy anti slant. They use stacks of
primary sources, anti-Scientology sources, and copious amounts of synthesis
(here's a good example that's never been touched by the
Scientologists<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard_and_the_military>).
As I've said before, this must stop, and if you have a proposal to fix it,
I'd sign it. But cementing the antis ownership is not a solution.

It takes two to edit war, and the antis only need to maintain the status
quo. By necessity Scientologists are destabilizing, but frankly, these
articles *should *be destabilized--by actual neutral editors.

Of course, neutral editors are rarely interested...

Frank
-----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:40:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> I'd prefer not to issue findings about institutions unless their
> conduct demonstrates misbehavior on Wikipedia.

I have sufficient experience with their inner workings (victims in my
immediate family) that I can tell you with absolute assurance that the
CoS directing employees to edit Wikipedia is not only probable, but
certain (although I couldn't say "paid" with a straight face). There is
no on-wiki thing I can point you at, however, nor proof tangible -- I
suppose my point is that it might not be suitable for a FoF but it's
definitely true.

-- Coren / Marc
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:56:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

Yeah, I think that's plausible. In light of the explaination he gave us,
this would be a reasonable hypothesis:

User begins leaching neighbor's unsecured wireless Comcast internet (almost
certainly using a laptop). Meanwhile, the desktop box is still plugged into
the DSL service he's getting rid of. User makes edits from the desktop as
second account, attempting to use non-Firefox browser, but accidentally
using unupdated FF 3.0.5 for a single edit.

I'm puzzled about the user's claim that Truthtell was Comcast, but if one
were trying to avoid sock implications, one would have to play dumb--and
what better way to play dumb than to argue from an entirely mistaken
premise? I think this is most likely what happened. Still, I would like
the finding softened to say "apparent" sockpuppetry. There's reasonable
doubt to me, but I strongly believe we should rule based on preponderance of
evidence--it's more likely than not, in my view.

Frank
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:09:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

As a point of information, Truthtell is not mentioned in the FOF at all
and there are other instances which Justa has now admitted.

With the admissions, there is now no doubt that Justa has used socks, so
why do we need to say "apparently"?


Roger
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:14:55 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proposed enforcement - Cirt

Our aim here should be to clear out the vested interests on both sides,
plus those in the middle involved in sub-feuds.

This will leave the way clear, on the eventualist theory, for the
neutrals to step in. I don't think there's any other way we can handle it.

So, I ask again, can we now please identify some egregious anti's and
target them too for sanctions?

Roger

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> By necessity Scientologists are destabilizing, but frankly,
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:19:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

JustaHulk was not an abusive sock, and it was fully disclosed at the time
(not just "now admitted"). Like Bishzilla without the clout. Do you really
want that in the finding?

Frank

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Roger Davies wrote:

> As a point of information, Truthtell is not mentioned in the FOF at all
------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:21:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

We shouldn't, I agree, specifically target COFS in an FOF but I think we
can do a whole lot better than the vanilla FOF we have, especially in
view of how widely use of the COFS IPs was reported in the media.

If needs be, we could have a separate but immediately following FOF that
Operation Clambake targetted web sites to push an anti-Scientology
agenda by way of balance. I have absolutely no problem with that and
think it adds considerable light to the decision.

Roger

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
>> I'd prefer not to issue findings about institutions unless their
>> conduct demonstrates misbehavior on Wikipedia.
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:23:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

Oh, Alphadog, right. Ok. Would prefer if the finding mentioned that.

Frank

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:

> JustaHulk was not an abusive sock, and it was fully disclosed at the time
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:26:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

We don't say "abusive"; we merely say "disruptive behaviour includes:
sockpuppetry" etc. The recent disclosure refers to alfadog and the IPs.

Roger

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> JustaHulk was not an abusive sock, and it was fully disclosed
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:30:23 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

Is there any particular reason for mentioning alfadog? And, if so, we
should probably refer to the ban evading IPs. It seems to me that this
will make the FOF longer to no particular benefit. If you absolutely
insist, I happily modify it to be a bit more specific ...

Roger


Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Oh, Alphadog, right. Ok. Would prefer if the finding mentioned that.
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:32:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case

Actually, Alfadog is interesting. That was his non-Scientology account. It
was blocked for making a non-Scientology edit requested on JustaHulk's talk
page.

Suggests that if you topic ban Justallofthem, he would still be a
contributor. Should topic ban him, not the indefinite ban you suggest under
the premise that he's an SPA.

Frank
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rhindle
post Sun 31st July 2011, 12:53am
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon 30th Jun 2008, 8:51pm
Member No.: 6,834



Of course we need to bring in Stephen Colbert for his input: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-r...-scientologists
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sun 31st July 2011, 1:45am
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Interesting reading. I have no idea what Roger Davies was on about:

QUOTE
As does the change of "[BBC man] rebuked" (source) to "[BBC man] disciplined" (Jayen).

The source said,

QUOTE
The journalist has been disciplined after an internal investigation. 'I've been arse-kicked but I haven't been fired,' he added.

Looks like Roger just read the headline of one of the sources, rather than the sources themselves. blink.gif Ah well.

Nice to see that Vassyana stuck up for me. An e-mail or talk page post is in order. I remember he retired from arbcom not long after this case.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Sun 31st July 2011, 2:51am
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Vassyana stuck around till January 2010, well past the end of this case.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Sun 31st July 2011, 3:49am
Post #9


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



QUOTE(Rhindle @ Sat 30th July 2011, 5:53pm) *

Of course we need to bring in Stephen Colbert for his input: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-r...-scientologists

QUOTE(Stephen Colbert @ Thursday 4th June 2009)
"These are lifetime appointments, because they do this until they get a life."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Sun 31st July 2011, 4:15am
Post #10


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



This one seems more scandalous than some of the others. It sort of comes off as "Are we hearing a case on Scientology? OK, let's checkuser and block all the pro-Scientology editors, and then we'll go ahead with an impartial hearing of the case."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sololol
post Sun 31st July 2011, 6:32pm
Post #11


Bell the Cat
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun 10th Apr 2011, 6:32am
Member No.: 50,538

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sun 31st July 2011, 12:15am) *

This one seems more scandalous than some of the others. It sort of comes off as "Are we hearing a case on Scientology? OK, let's checkuser and block all the pro-Scientology editors, and then we'll go ahead with an impartial hearing of the case."

It looks like a lot of it was pretty open and shut, banning the COI IPs and their collaborators. Compared to the CAMERA case they did a good job dealing with an advocacy group to the best of their ability. Perhaps I've not had a good auditing to clear me of infectious Thetans but the CoS is one of the more worrisome potential WP lobby groups, with a nasty reputation for dealing with PR threats and the resources to be a nuisance.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Sun 31st July 2011, 10:05pm
Post #12


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sololol @ Sun 31st July 2011, 6:32pm) *

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sun 31st July 2011, 12:15am) *

This one seems more scandalous than some of the others. It sort of comes off as "Are we hearing a case on Scientology? OK, let's checkuser and block all the pro-Scientology editors, and then we'll go ahead with an impartial hearing of the case."

It looks like a lot of it was pretty open and shut, banning the COI IPs and their collaborators. Compared to the CAMERA case they did a good job dealing with an advocacy group to the best of their ability. Perhaps I've not had a good auditing to clear me of infectious Thetans but the CoS is one of the more worrisome potential WP lobby groups, with a nasty reputation for dealing with PR threats and the resources to be a nuisance.


The Committee actually did do a good job in their decision with this particular case. One problem with it, though, is that it appears to have made them think that the problem-solving and communication model they were using was effective. The other leaked emails, however, show that that isn't the case. In fact, their lack of a structured approach to addressing the problems brought before them is a major impediment in reaching fair, consistent, and effective decisions. So, the good results from this case were an anomaly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sun 31st July 2011, 10:29pm
Post #13


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 31st July 2011, 6:05pm) *
In fact, their lack of a structured approach to addressing the problems brought before them is a major impediment in reaching fair, consistent, and effective decisions. So, the good results from this case were an anomaly.
Yeah.

They are overwhelmed because they don't set up structure and process to ensure that cases are decided based on careful deliberation, including all the elements of that. It's a replication of the large-scale wiki dysfunction: massive redundancy combined with spotty coverage.

If some vandal attacks a page, there are Recent Changes patrollers competing for which one whacks it first. For every correcting edit, there might be a dozen that tried the same thing. That's massively inefficient. On the other hand, if vandalism gets through the RCP gauntlet, as it sometimes does, it can sit around for years unnoticed. That's because there is no structure. Recently, flagged revisions made it possible to ensure that everything was verified. You know where that went....

ArbComm needs active investigators, responsible to it. Each arb should have several clerks, chosen personally by the arbitrator, to assist with examination of evidence, etc. I'm not convinced that the usage of the ad-hoc, anyone can prosecute, model is at all good for the wiki. Basically, you may have a completely valid complaint, but if you are not skilled at presentation, you are dead meat. ArbComm does not take an active role to protect the wiki. Except when it wants to, i.e., an arb dislikes an editor.

The most outrageous example I've seen, and I've seen it many times, is administrators arguing against recusal policy before ArbComm. Imagine a police officer making a speech arguing that officers may ignore policies about conduct when personally involved. They'd be suspended immediately, perhaps fired.

Instead, ArbComm depends on individual editors to bring cases against abusive administrators. And frequently they sanction the editor bringing the case, even if the admin abuse is confirmed. I was advised by a highly experienced editor (and ex-administrator), before I was about to file my first RfAr, that I'd be banned if I did it. And I had an open and shut case. I didn't actually file that case, I had all the ducks in a row, but Jehochman filed it.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 31st July 2011, 10:30pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jagärdu
post Mon 1st August 2011, 12:26pm
Post #14


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri 25th Jun 2010, 3:20am
Member No.: 22,114



QUOTE

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:59:36 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> 2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:
>
> > Is there previous discussion of Jossi's alleged outing threats? I
> thought
> > that he was already outed because Smeeglova was tied to a known
> individual,
> > or am I mistaken? Where have these threats been discussed?
>
>
> The Smee connection wasn't public until quite recently. Jossi was
> trying to hold this over Cirt should he ever become an admin. (He
> did, and Jossi didn't follow through on his threats.)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
Well, he didn't need to because Kelly Martin outed him on WR. For what it's
worth, Yellow Monkey said that it seemed like an open secret anyway.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ber/021691.html

When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
haven't found the thread.

CHL


Say what? Kelly Martin outed Cirt on this website? Do they mean that Kelly made the link between Cirt/Smee/Smeelgova known on Wikipedia Review or that she actually outed him? Also, when they are talking about whatever it is the Jossi knows about Cirt is that his real life identity or was that, again just this on-wiki connection that people in the know appeared to want to hide at first.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Mon 1st August 2011, 1:49pm
Post #15


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



Yup, I outed Smee in this thread. It amuses me how much attention ArbCom pays to the random mutterings over here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jagärdu
post Mon 1st August 2011, 2:35pm
Post #16


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri 25th Jun 2010, 3:20am
Member No.: 22,114



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 1st August 2011, 1:49pm) *

Yup, I outed Smee in this thread. It amuses me how much attention ArbCom pays to the random mutterings over here.


They need to use different language for this kind of thing. Connecting a prior account with a current one is hardly in the same ballpark as connecting an account with the real life identity of someone. Do you know if this level of "outing" (connecting Cirt to Smee) is all that Cirt feared from Jossi as well?

Note to Malice: Anything surrounding Cirt's RfA would be a great addition to this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 3rd 9 14, 2:09am