This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fahrenheit451 (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 20 September 2007 (→Comment to arbitrators: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:59, 20 September 2007 by Fahrenheit451 (talk | contribs) (→Comment to arbitrators: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Arbitrators active on this case
- Blnguyen
- Charles Matthews
- FloNight
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- Jpgordon
- Kirill Lokshin
- Morven
- Paul August
- SimonP
- UninvitedCompany
Inactive/away:
- Flcelloguy
- Mackensen
- Neutrality
- Raul654
Question
User:Kwsn here (I'm on a hotel computer, so no logging on for me), and I'm just wondering why the "mutual pestering ban" didn't make it here. Just curious. 24.39.50.51 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hasn't yet, that's all. It's a work in progress. Of course, if the parties involved will simply agree not to pester each other, we won't need to make it official. --jpgordon 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Makes sense, thanks for clearing it up. Kwsn 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Question
Apologies if this is the wrong place. When is this arbitration due to finish and who decides that? Misou 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The committee members working on the case will make a motion to close when the work on the case appears to them to be complete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Thought something like that. Misou 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Article parole
I'm surprised there's no proposal to put the Scientology series on article parole. That's done a lot of good for Waldorf education/Anthroposophy and I think it would help here. Durova 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's been added. - Jehochman 05:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Consistency
Sorry for being so picky, but I noticed that "username" is written as one word in the section header, and as two words ("user name") in the FoF itself. Which spelling do you prefer? Melsaran 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What does the F stand for?
Church Of Scientology is pretty obvious, but where does the F come from? hbdragon88 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the assumption is that it stands for "C(hurch) OF S(cientology)", with the "of" spelled out. "C of S" --> COFS. If I have interpreted this wrong I'm sure someone will say so. Newyorkbrad 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. Strangely enough, COFS does not redirect to the Church of Scientology article. hbdragon88 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not strange, I have been around for quite a while out and in and out of Scientology and I NEVER saw the abbreviation COFS (or CofS) being used for Church of Scientology. It's "CoS". Misou 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen cofs used as an abbrevation for church of scientology many times. cos is used as well.--Fahrenheit451 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. Strangely enough, COFS does not redirect to the Church of Scientology article. hbdragon88 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
A comment before this closes
While this case has been ongoing real world news coverage turned its attention to IP editing at Misplaced Pages from a variety of organizations. Scientology has been one of those organizations.
Occasionally I write about Misplaced Pages for offsite publications and (very occasionally) get contacted by journalists. So in order avoid confusion about this case or my role in it, I have recused myself from public discussion about the media's coverage of Misplaced Pages and Scientology with one exception: at the Village Signpost tipline I advised another named party from this case against posting about Scientology news while arbitration remains open. I have praised Virgil Griffith's scanner in general terms, but I have drawn no attention to the information it generates about the Church of Scientology's IP editing history. Appropriate standards of conduct for a sysop are vague in this situation so I've taken a conservative approach. Sometimes I cite closed cases in later discussions.
The court of public opinion can be a harsh judge. If my own decisions in this case appeared aggressive, it was because I anticipated and attempted to mitigate those larger consequences. Durova 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Rename
User:COFS was renamed to User:Shutterbug today. Secretlondon 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- In case any arbs were wondering, here is the reason for the change now. The usurpation request was filed because it looked like the decision would require a name change. Because the request was filed before the remedy was fully supported (enough votes), the case was not done, and the 30 day ban wasn't over, Secretlondon asked whether or not it should be done now, after the case had closed, or after the 30 day ban had been completed, as prescribed by the remedy. Uninvited Company suggested it be done now, and Jdforrester agreed. On that information, it was decided at the usurpation request to do it now. Just so you all know why, and to avoid confusion as to why COFS is now known as Shutterbug. i 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Banned from harassing" (wording)
I see that proposals have been added providing that a user be "banned from harassing" another. Up until now, the term "banned" has had a specific meaning in the context of arbitration decisions and enforcement, as in "banned from editing" or "topic ban" or "article ban." May I suggest that in this context, wording such as "prohibited from harassing" be used. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Have so done. Good catch.
- James F. (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments on proposals
Conflict of interest
2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.
Comment: Might I respectfully point out that, though this is true in principle, it's absurdly worded. No offense intended but ... what EXACTLY does this mean: "Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas"
- Who decides whether or not they can make a genuine good-faith effort. And, what exactly is a genuine good-faith effort? From who's perspective? Hitler made a genunie good-faith effort to purify the human race.. though we'd all agree it was horribly misguided, I think it probably was a genuine good-faith effort from his perspective.
- How strong must a belief be before it prevents someone from making a genuine good-faith effort? Suppose they Genuinely believe the are removing POV but are really adding POV?
- This wording is incredibly SUBJECTIVE and VAGUE and could be applied to anyone by anyone with a different viewpoint. It can't possibly be strictly applied because it isn't strictly worded.
Peace.Lsi john 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: COI should be defined narrowly because editors frequently make COI accusations to gain the upper hand in editing disputes. Everybody has "allegiances" and "beliefs." Those stick out as too expansive. "Duties" is a fine way to define COI. If an editor believes in Scientology, she may be a POV pusher as a result, but that's not COI. If an editor receives something of value from the Church of Scientology in exchange for editing a certain way, that's COI.- Jehochman 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Recruiting editors with conflicts of interest
3) Recruiting editors to join Misplaced Pages for the purpose of editing in subject areas where they have duties, allegiances, or beliefs at odds with our NPOV policy is highly disruptive, since a numeric majority of editors pursuing a particular point of view may overwhelm efforts by others to seek NPOV.
Comment: again, this is true. But it is based on KNOWING the MOTIVE for the recruitment. Unless a motive is explicitly stated, we can only guess or assume. If we do not AGF then we break our own rules of conduct. Therefore this principle is also VAGUE and rather pointless. We base our policy decisions on the OUTCOME of the EDITS, not the reason the person was brought here. If you were asked to edit on wiki by someone with a POV motive but you edit NPOV, how can we declare that to be unconstructive or disruptive? Peace.Lsi john 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Disclosure
4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.
Comment: Far too restrictive. What about religious beliefs? What about club membership? Why limit it to 'work related'? And what about anonymous editing? Suppose that revealing the nature of their work forces them to reveal their identity. Won't that conflict with our other rules and values here? Peace.Lsi john 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Multiple editors with a single voice
8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Misplaced Pages. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)
Comment: I'm impressed that this made it here. I applaud whoever put it here. It speaks directly to my concerns about the 'MIS-interpretation' of Checkuser results.. Thank you. Peace.Lsi john 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Recruiting
4) User:COFS is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics.
Comment: This is also a bit absurd. Why single COFS out?
- A) There is no evidence to suggest that COFS did any recruiting.
- B) NOBODY should be doing POV recruiting. Why name a specific person who has never been convicted or accused of such recruitment?
Peace.Lsi john 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
COFS banned for 30 days
1) User:COFS's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days.
Comment: So much for bans are not PUNITIVE. COFS makes VERY FEW edits to begin with. I've seen no real evidence that any of the edits were actually POV edits. At worst some are subjective. What purpose does a ban serve in this case? If bans are preventative.. and if COFS rarely edits to begin with.. are we just flexing our muscle to be tough and prove we can ban someone? bah. Peace.Lsi john 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this: Why ban COFS for 30 days? She has agreed to change user name, and if there is further POV pushing, any admin can issue a block. - Jehochman 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Recruitment
3) The most plausible explanation for the presence of a number of users editing from a pro-Scientology point of view who appear to share the same physical network connection with COFS (talk · contribs) is that these users have been recruited by COFS or a related individual.
Comment: This is the most plausible answer you can find?! How many scientologists do you think exist? How many are represented here? Given their membership levels, I think Scientology is UNDER-REPRESENTED. And the most plausible explanation for that is the extreme behavior by the anti-scientologists? Therefore, I think you've got it turned around. but what the hell do I know.. Peace.Lsi john 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
comments
I don't really know how these arbitration things work, so if those oppose/support fields were only for certain editors and not open for anyone to chime in, apologies in advance, please delete my comments. wikipediatrix 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Proposed decision page is the place where the Arbitration Committee votes on the case. No one else comments or edits this page except the clerks that help us with keep the pages and case in order. Please make your comments on this talk page or the case Workshop page. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Justanother
Regarding this, would it be possible to punish justanother if he baits Anynobody into violating his harrassment ban (assuming that passes)? Kwsn(Ni!) 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Remedies are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Durova 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm saying that if Justanother gets involved with something Anynobody is involved with, which ends up with Anynobody violating the proposed harassment ban as a result of Justanother's actions there, it wouldn't be fair to me that Justanother can bait Anynobody into violating the ban and not get at least a similar block for it. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not every theoretically possible situation that needs spelling out in an arbitration decision. If something like that happened (which is a rather far-fetched and bad-faith-assuming idea, since nobody has accused Justanother of provocative or baiting conduct), I'm sure many admins would be ready to block Justanother, just per common sense. I know I would. And I very much doubt that Anynobody would be blocked at all in such a situation. The remedy against Anynobody is clearly meant to stop him exercising his ingenuity in pestering Justanother; not to test his capacity for enduring pinpricks from Justanother. Justanother will be in deep shit if there's any of that. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC).
Comment to arbitrators
(Posting here as an editor, of course, and not with any sort of clerk hat on.)
This case was filed in June, opened on July 2, and placed into voting on July 27. Unless there is something very serious going on behind the scenes, the length of time the case has been sitting here almost finished is excessive, and I submit that the case needs to be wrapped up and closed in the reasonably near future.
Somewhat inconsistent with my desire to see the case close soon, I submit that with the passage of time, the 30-day ban against the user formerly known as COFS needs to be reevaluated. I have no strong view on whether the ban was appropriate when proposed, but at this late date its enforcement might best be suspended. I find the idea of imposing a ban for October based on edits from May to be troubling, especially in the absence of any allegation of ongoing problems. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:Shutterbug seems to have occasional friction with other editors, but is trying to do better. I am the one who sort of instigated this case, and I don't think a 30 day ban is necessary. If the user causes problems, our administrators can take appropriate action. - Jehochman 11:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:Shutterbug has recently violated WP:CIVIL in several places in this MedCab discussion: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31_David_Miscavige. Has this user really reformed?--Fahrenheit451 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)