Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Statement by Shutterbug

This ArbCom turned out to the most damaging act ever done by a WP group. Damaging for the Wikipedia project, because lies were first allowed, then pushed and forwarded, and finally cemented in a bogus "decision" to ban a whole group of people based solely on their religious beliefs. So, who's next? Shutterbug (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I witnessed this blossoming dispute, and feel that arbitration is inevitable. Better to hear the matter now before disruption becomes more widespread. The threads at WP:AE look like miniature arbitration cases. That board is ill-suited to dealing with such complexity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Flo, the problem is deadlock. We cannot generate a consensus at WP:AE for whatever reasons, and there does not seem to be any admin willing to take action. (I'd normally step up to the plate, but as a party to the original case, I should not.) The parties should have used mediation or requests for comment to resolve content disagreements, though we cannot force them. The large amount of evidence is not "bad" per se; however, lengthy presentations are ill suited to noticeboards. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I was reading this on WP:AE yesterday and felt the best outcome was to close it as "interesting, but sparse on anything actionable." The outstanding SSP and CU requests need to be completed, and the content problems need to go back to their respective talk pages.

The content dispute has been blown way out of proportion. For context, the majority of the concerns on WP:AE are regarding "Scientology and sex", a sub-article that focuses on one aspect of Scientology, and that article recently sent to AFD by user:Justallofthem; it was closed as "keep" on November 30 (basicly a WP:SNOW). In this light, adding reported issues about sex is to be expected, and it should be expected that it will go into controversies that have arisen over time. Those who prefer that we didnt have an article about this topic are going to need to accept the community disagrees strongly. Obviously the article needs to comply with all our policies, and some of Cirts additions are questionable, but the new material was removed, and has not been restored. It is a content dispute, and a minor one at that. If the two sides are unable to find compromise, they should request a WP:3O on specific issues, file a RFC or seek mediation (When I read the AE board last night, I thought Durova had offered mediation??).

fwiw, after reading the AE thread, I started to get involved to help restore stability.[1][2]

If there are wider issues to do with the actions of user:Cirt, a credible description of the problem needs to be compiled and taken to WP:RFC/U because there is nothing provided here now, nor was there any provided at WP:AE. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Spidern

I will openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Wikipedia as a motivation to edit; in parsing the main article I found many things that I took issue with from an editorial standpoint. That being said, I am moving into some other areas of interest as well. So I ask anyone that believes that my account to be single-purposed to consider my contributions outside of Scientology-related pages.

As being discussed by the editors working on the page at the time I first arrived, one significant problem with the Scientology page was its prominent use of primary sources. So being a fairly compulsive editor, I systematically rearranged the page in an intuitive attempt to improve it, removing secondary sources along the way. The quality of Scientology-related pages for the most part seems to have been compromised with the use of primary sources, which was an issue that I was working on (and still do, on a more limited basis). It must be noted, however, that promoting the use of secondary sources in the place of primary ones does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:RS; quite to the contrary.

Now judging by the amount of effort that all of the involved editors put into WP:SCN, it sometimes becomes aggravating and counter-productive to deal with the unreasonable opposition we encounter. What we are dealing with here is not a persecution of editors due to their faith, but a situation where all available evidence suggests that individual editors closely connected with the Church of Scientology are attempting to cast it in a positive light. This is no different than employees of Microsoft editing the Windows Vista article.

As for the arbitration and eventual resolution of this matter, I ask that Arbitrators consider any prior evidence in addition to the actions taken by the parties in question which proceeded the original Arbitration ruling. Two particular edits are of interest: one from Dec 9, 2008 by 205.227.165.151 (talk) and the other occurring on May 9, 2007 by 205.227.165.244 (talk) (resolves to ws.churchofscientology.org). Both IPs are within the same class C range, which is owned by the Church of Scientology International. Historically, four more known Scientology-owned IPs performed edits almost entirely limited to Scientology-related pages, see 205.227.165.14 (talk • whois), 205.227.165.11 (talk • whois), 63.199.209.133 (talk • whois), and 63.199.209.131 (talk • whois). During January 2008, Misou (a confirmed sockpuppet on Wikipedia) was found by a checkuser on Wikinews to be using open proxies as well as IPs controlled by the Church of Scientology (Misou was subsequently banned). As recently as Oct 21, 2008, Shutterbug was banned from Wikinews for "disruptive behavior" and "Block evasion via proxies".

To conclude, I'd like to quote here a few points which were first illustrated by myself in the WP:AE thread: "Let the records show that it was found that there was indeed overlapping ip address usage belonging to a specific group of editors appearing to have a conflict of interest, who acted towards pushing a particular pov. Since those findings were announced, the pov-pushing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), assumption of bad faith, (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), and removal of reliable sources (19, 20, 21) has continued."

Response to Shrampes

To echo what GoodDamon (talk · contribs) said, SPA accounts are never truly an issue unless a COI is apparent. I make every effort possible to present my changes in a neutral way. If you believe that I am not doing so, please show me diffs which you believe to be indicative of a bias. Also, the claim that I reverted any of your edits on Dianetics is false. Furthermore, you falsely claimed that the source you removed was previously added by me, which I refuted on the talk page. ←Spidern→ 06:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Justallofthem

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun a little with presenting the evidence, it was intended to illustrate that arbitration action is clearly needed here. But I would also argue that the Misou case on Wikinews is every bit as relevant here, considering that we're dealing with the behavior of a user named as a party in this RFAR. ←Spidern→ 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by harej

What I have seen here are reports of sock puppetry, of role accounts, of biased editing, and of people yelling at each other because "the other guy" is wrong. Which is to be expected, as the subject at hand makes a perfect drama sandwich. I like my sandwiches to have fresh mozzarella.

This is a matter of editors being able to control themselves in the name of academia. I am not blaming anyone for being non-neutral, nor for being uncivil. Both things are perfectly human, but that does not make incivility and biased editing appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. That is what makes Wikipedia editing so hard. Those who have been accused/convicted of biased editing should admit to their faults and work extra hard to write in the "they're an organization that has done stuff" style; even those who think they are perfectly neutral should work extra-hard anyway, only because this is such a heated subject. I know I probably couldn't write neutrally on the matter of Scientology if I tried.

Which is what makes civil, cooperative behavior so important. Those who have seen me on IRC know that I put my feet in my mouth on a frequent occasion. That makes me an anti-example on how editors should behave while disputing encyclopedia content. (To be fair, I try to be on my best behavior when making a case for something on Wikipedia). I am calling on involved editors to take it seriously, but not personally, when accused of non-neutral editing. If you have reacted poorly in the past, try in the present now to keep your anger from Wikipedia. Punch the wall if you have to. All editors must work cooperatively for the wellness of the article, even if they disagree. This is something I take very seriously, and the ArbCom should move towards restoring an editing environment conducive to scholarly collaboration.

Inevitably, people are not going to try, and they will continue down a path of arrogance and non-cooperation. Those people should be removed from editing, whether from Scientology topics or Wikipedia as a whole. It will be painful, but Wikipedia benefits not from people who sour the environment of academia.

May I also note that the resolutions from the COFS case are pretty weak. "Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother"? No kidding!

--harej 03:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback

I urge the ArbCom to take this case. It appears to be a residue from the COFS case last year. It shows the problem with using article probation as a remedy. The ArbCom gets complex cases with extensive evidence and spends weeks to months considering the factors. Then, instead of bringing the matter to a final resolution, it tosses them back to the community. Rather than a decision by a small, cohesive committee, a probation remedy turns the unresolved disputes over to the relatively chaotic WP:AE. There, admins have a few days or a week to look at relatively little evidence and make the difficult decisions that the ArbCom didn't make when it had the chance. A recent, messy case involving civility parole is another example of what happens when problems aren't solved and are allowed to smolder along.

In this case, the unresolved issue is how to deal with single purpose, POV pushing accounts, some of which may be acting in concert. The community has made efforts to deal with the issue with proposals like Wikipedia:Tag team and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Now is a good time to find how these solutions can be brought to bear on the actual problems this project faces. Please, take the case and resolve it so it doesn't keep popping up again and again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"added parties of interest"

OK, I've just been added (after three weeks) as an "added party of interest". What does that actually mean, precisely? Do I need to monitor these pages for changes mentioning me? Is there a handy guide to where in the thousands of kilobytes of subpages the bits about me will actually be?

Suggestion: you give added "parties of interest" more of a pointer on their talk page as to what the "interest" actually is - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, particularly as it's after four months - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because material has only very recently come to light.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read the arbcom-l archives on the matter. This has a tone of "shocked, shocked!" about it - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Much as I like Captain Louis Renault, it's hardly appropriate here. It came to my attention only very recently that many of the people listed as "Internet activists" on {{Scientology and the Internet}} are actively editing Scientology articles. More generally, I have been unable to find any correspondence from ArbCom in the archives promising people with unresolvable conflicts of interest amnesty or immunity.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The names at {{Scientology and the Internet}} are Mark Bunker, Tory Christman, Tilman Hausherr, Andreas Heldal-Lund, Keith Henson, Arnaldo Lerma, Shawn Lonsdale, Karin Spaink, David S. Touretzky, and Lawrence Wollersheim. I'm not aware that any of them has been actively editing Scientology articles unless it's been in the last few months. (Perhaps Lerma, I'd have to check.) Keith Henson has edited his own article, mainly his publication list. AndroidCat (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, Tilman Hausherr does. AndroidCat (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the point here is that there is no reason why this should be limited to activity in the last few months or to the prominent Scientology critics on that particular list, which is after all but one of many. ArbCom has never investigated this aspect of POV pushing in Scientology-related articles and, on the basis that it takes two to tango, will never resolve the systemic problems with this topic until it does.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This has never been a secret. I started WP:SCN. I have advised arbcom and Jimbo extensively on how to deal with coordinated attacks from Scientology editors. This is what I mean about the hazards of the 2009 arbcom's Year Zero approach and aversion to advice from those who made the mistakes already - you really are repeating history, hitting your heads on every step on the way down - David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Whatever the original tactic was, it hasn't worked. Despite four arbitrations in four years, the topic is a battlefield and is likely to remain forever one unless drastic steps (with or without headbumping) are taken. Clearly, we need to deal effectively with Scientologists who come here to push their POV but we need equally to rein in the critics/sceptics who are actively promoting an opposing stance. The two factions feed off each other, prolong the agony, and foster further factionalism. The overall objective here is not to create a broadly hostile landscape, were sources or synthesis or original research is either accepted or rejected depending on the POV it supports, but one where this controversial subject can be treated neutrally and dispassionately. That is what Wikipedia policy is all about.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted the following statement on the main page before noticing this discussion here. I'm not sure where it's more appropriate. After reading David's comments above, I have to agree it looks kind of weird to add a whole bunch of people this late in the case. (Not that I know very much about arbitration, just that it sounds like scope creep.)

Looking over the sub-pages, the only mention of me I can find is one from *2005* where I pointed out some apparent sock-puppeting at the time between IP address editors. Just what am I supposed to be looking at? --FOo (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fubar Obfusco

Looks like a large number of contributors were added to this never-ending case just last week, including me. I'm not entirely sure if that's necessary. I don't consider myself a major contributor to the Scientology-related articles, though it's a topic I visit from time to time. I've stayed far away from edit-warring with the Church's sock puppets, but I guess I'm supposed to say something here anyhow.

I don't have a lot to contribute here, though: having looked over the various materials brought up in this case, it seems to me that the conduct of the sock crew is so blatant, and its continuity with Scientology's history of trying to shut down honest reporting about itself is so evident, that anyone who seriously considers the situation will come to a reasonable conclusion. --FOo (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

There is no indication on the main page whether this particular RFA first passed through any mediation process (with links if so) or due to the reoccurring nature of the problem, passed straight to arbitration. It should be there so that interested parties can examine the process leading up to this. AndroidCat (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See diff just prior to case opening, at WP:RFAR page: [3]. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

News article on this debate

link Grundle2600 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)