Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:08, 18 July 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

COFS is away until July 14

1) Hallo, I accidentally learned about an ongoing arbitration about myself which supposedly started weeks ago. I am not able to go online regularly before 14 July 07 nor to deal with this issue with appropriate attention. I however will submit a statement and evidence about the issue and related evidence after the above date. Thanks. COFS 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cross-posted from my talkpage by the Clerk. In the context of an arbitration case this one-week delay should not be problematic. Newyorkbrad 13:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually her user pages says July 20. Misou 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close due to lack of evidence

2) Motion to close this arbitration due to lack of evidence. The administrator who brought the arbitration had ample time to prepare the case prior to arbitration. The case was already at WP:CSN and all of the evidence should have been there already. When the request for arbitration was opened there were numerous allegations of violations of MEAT, CIVIL etc. To date, no substantial evidence of any kind has been brought forward to support those charges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some comments: Are we allowed to use statements within this forum as evidence for the present case? -- yes, indeed. ArbCom can, and will, consider behavior occurring during the course of this arbitration case; more than once, such behavior has been the primary reason for the final decision. As far as the motion is concerned, ArbCom is in no rush; we're quite willing to wait and watch as evidence is assembled. There is no "defense", there are no "pleas"; this isn't a legal proceeding, and ArbCom is not bound by any particular formal structure. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much too soon to consider something like this. We take a case if we see a problem that needs to be addressed. Not too likely to drop it merely because the case is not well stated. ArbCom has not started evaluating the case yet. When we do, we will consider evidence placed on the case and also we look into the editing history of the parties involved before and during the case. Then we address the problem with remedies. FloNight 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This case was brought to arbitration prematurely. There has been no RfC, no medcab, no COIN blocks or sanctions. There should have been ample evidence from the WP:CSN case, but there was none. Peace.Lsi john 11:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - we need clarification of how to handle this situation. There are multiple disruptive editors on both sides of the dispute who have frustrated WP:COIN and WP:CSN with endless wikilawyering. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I agree that there is a problem. And perhaps one 'ruling' or 'determination' that you could suggest is that the committee find "there is not a 'good' method already in place to handle these situations". However, the violations you imply should be handled by regular dispute resolution. If there is evidence of this 'disruption' it should have been presented and it has not been. The only conclusion I can reach is that this is because the behavior is never 'sufficient' to really be called disruptive, but is, instead, a slow steady POV nagging pain in the *** with one or both sides trying to 'game' the system and get an advantage. (By the way, there is currently a proposal being drafted to handle situations similar to this, using 'article supervision', where GoodFaith is NOT assumed and a VERY SHORT LEASH is used for CIVIL and POV compliance. But it is preliminary and has not yet been formally proposed.) Peace.Lsi john 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, that sort of trash talk without evidence is exactly why this action should be closed and those editors and admins that post such bad faith trash should be strongly cautioned to desist. This was originally started by User:SheffieldSteel on WP:COIN as a simple question about COI that is worth discussing on that forum. It was you, Jehochman, who improperly suggested that it be brought to WP:CSN and it was your mentor, User:Durova who improperly allowed it to remain there and who elevated it to this forum. Both of you have had ample opportunity to present evidence against COFS to support your unfounded claims of disruption or WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT and you have not come up with any. All due respect but perhaps this is a good time to "Put up or shut up". --Justanother 14:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) --Justanother 14:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to use statements within this forum as evidence for the present case? Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of what? COFS has not yet commented here. Nor have any other of the editors from the proxy. Evidence of what? That User:Justanother is a WP:DICK? I don't think my comments are especially "dickish". I stand by my comments; do what you will with them. I cannot speak for Lsi john, of course. --Justanother 15:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to wait for COFS to respond before investing a lot of time to compile evidence. As the central party, how COFS responds could change the direction of this case. I'd rather not make a case against you, Justanother. Perhaps you want to strike or refactor some of what you wrote above. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I am just tired of the the accusations without proof. You could have simply left it as "we need clarification of how to handle this situation" referring to the proxy issue. I agree. I think that that discussion should have taken place on WP:COIN and I think that it still should. You did not need to add ambiguous complaints against a large number of unamed editors. That was uncalled for and you should be the one considering striking or refactoring! --Justanother 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You might want to refactor generate evidence as I doubt you truly intend to 'generate' any evidence. As for waiting for COFS to respond; Please look at the definition of 'respond'. If you can't be bothered to 'locate' evidence, what 'response' do you expect from COFS? In a court case, prosecution goes first, defense responds. Why do you want this process to be different? The prosecution has failed to make a prima facie case. No response from the defense is even necessary at this point. Peace.Lsi john 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A case was filed. COFS hasn't responded yet, per the clerk's note. After COFS responds, we'll see what evidence is necessary. Maybe COFS will admit there's a problem and want to work towards solving it. I'd like nothing more than to end this case with a handshake. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you mean COFS has not entered a 'plea of .. guilty or not guilty'. Personally, I think COFS had ample time to say 'guilty' at the CSN thread. I think it's reasonable to assume COFS will 'plead' not guilty. My biggest point in this is that the CSN thread got so far without any evidence. You should not have to generate/locate the evidence. It should have already been collected prior to Durova's choice of mentorship or ban.Peace.Lsi john 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that an automatic plea of 'not guilty' is entered for defendants in absentia. (just trying to be clear not lawyeresque.) The real point is that no evidence to support the charges has been presented after two weeks and we need to move on. Peace.Lsi john 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. --Justanother 14:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly object. The main body of my evidence has yet to be posted. I often wait for other editors to go first at cases where I'm not a primary disputant since they have firsthand recollections of relevant events and I don't want to duplicate points they might be in a better position to express. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

What lack of evidence? Anynobody gave some compelling evidence, as did Jpgordon. I honestly think Lsi is doing this because he doesn't want to be involved anymore (see his original statement, last line of it). The motion is also premature since COFS hasn't even given his evidence yet. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- There is an important situation here which needs resolution. There is plenty of evidence. It appears to me that the cofs-directed editors do not want this proceeding to move ahead.--Fahrenheit451 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"cofs-directed editors". Care to expand on that, User:Fahrenheit451? --Justanother 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, are you attempting to start what you call "Bait and Bitch"?--Fahrenheit451 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, you already put the bait out there with "cofs-directed editors", I am asking you to explain that. --Justanother 01:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, you have it inverted. You were the guy who put the bait out there and I am not giving you the opportunity to engage in personal attacks and incivility. It looks to me that you are violating WP:AGF. --Fahrenheit451 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to include the correct use of WP:CSN in this arbitration

3) I think that inclusion of a discussion of the correct use of WP:CSN in this arbitration is fitting and would benefit the project as a whole.

In my opinion, and with all due respect to Durova, the use of WP:CSN that Durova seems to support, here and, IMO, by her actions on the CSN board, as perhaps some sort of summary court (my term, not hers), is contrary to the policy that is supposed to be the basis for the CSN board, Wikipedia:Ban#Community ban, and contrary to the cautions printed in bold at the top of the CSN page itself. I addressed this during the COFS CSN case itself, diff and mentioned that when the COFS case was over that I was going to address it at WP:AN, not as an attack on Durova but as something that needed to be addressed. To recap my argument, I felt that, in cases like User:COFS, the board is being misused. The cautions printed in bold at the top of the CSN page itself clearly state:

Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort.

Yet, in COFS' case, that instruction was clearly ignored and there was no real previous WP:DR. As I stated at the time, I thought it odd that a so-called community sanction was taking place with a small group of mostly highly-invested editors and one admin, along with her apprentice, who might see such use of the board as part of what she descibes as her "hobby". With all due respect to Durova et al (really, this is NOT about Durova and I imagine that she will abide by what is decided either here or at WP:AN, if the arbitrators decline to address the issue here), I found that an odd definition of "community". I thought it odd that the board even existed. (Later an editor made me aware of a recent WP:MfD on the board, here, where, FWIW, User:Jimbo Wales voted to delete. The MfD closed as "No consensus".) When I looked at the policy that is supposed to be the basis for this board, Wikipedia:Ban#Community ban, I was surprised to find that it did not describe what was happening on the CSN board at all. The way I think the CSN board is supposed to be used is that an editor finally racks up so many blocks that an admin blocks him indef. Then the admin posts it on CSN and we see if any other admin will unblock. If not, voila, community ban. That is what is described at Wikipedia:Ban#Decision to ban as # 1. This action of going over to WP:CSN looking for the indef block or ban is clear misuse of that board, IMO. I wonder if the arbitrators would like to make clarifying the correct use of the WP:CSN board in light of the policy on bans a part of this action? I think that that would be a Good Thing. --Justanother 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

If you want to recommend some principles and findings of fact, go right ahead. We'll attend to them (or not) as we see fit; you don't need either a motion or our permission to bring up the issue yourself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If the Committee decides to accept this motion it would expand the scope of this case considerably. Several of Justanother's policy and process assertions point toward cluster of actions that were initiated in March and April of this year by a relatively small group of editors who are not named parties presently. In defending my actions it would be necessary to present diffs that relate to them. If the Committee considers this I suggest a circumscribed version of the above: the present wording is wide ranging and prejudicial. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My post edit conflicted with jpgordon's. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion to clearly state the charges

4) I have been reading through lots of garble and comments and whatnot here. What are the charges exactly and why is Durova so eager to get COFS banned? I want this clearly stated. Misou 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Editors should avoid creating the appearance of COI violations

1) An apparent of Conflict of Interest can be just as damaging to Wikipedia's reputation as an actual conflict of interest. Editors should avoid behaving in a way that creates an apparent COI violation. Jehochman ^Hablar 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This would be something of an extension to existing policy, which is concerned with actual, not perceived, conflict of interest. I don't see where the community has put such an extension forward; perhaps someone might point me to such an existing statement of policy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write a completely new proposal, given that the responses here are to the original one? Edits like this make the discussion very hard to make sense of. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I've refactored my proposal (below) in the form of a clarification as to the evidence required to establish COI editing. The problem we face is that editors who engage in COI editing aren't always forthcoming about their intentions. Appearances plus policy violations should be sufficient to establish COI editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the wording is on target, but something along these lines may be appropriate if it falls within the Committee's mandate. One point I'd like to drive at is that this site's interpretations of COI shouldn't be divorced from a reasonable non-Wikipedian's commonsense understanding. Wikipedia's archives are public disclosures and GDFL licensed, and the site's prominence does mean the press picks up on the appearance of impropriety sometimes. It's pretty random which situation they'll publicize, but we've all seen some of those situations snowball in the news. Wikipedia has an interest in minimizing that dynamic. So do all its editors, although some may not realize that. Durova^Charge! 18:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI does not include other than a trivial mention of "appearance" in reference to COI. Not only is such a policy change outside the mandate of this arbitration, as I understand that mandate, it is a change that would be extremely contentious as "appearance of COI" can be interpreted with an extremely wide latitude and would likely just form yet another basis for disruptive squabbling that does not further this project. It is instruction creep at its worst, IMO. --Justanother 15:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I suggest this wording, "An apparent Conflict of Interest can damage Wikipedia's reputation. Editors should conduct themselves in such a manner as to avoid the appearance of COI."--Fahrenheit451 04:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: "Weasel wording". What is an apparent coi? What guidance can we provide an editor to show them a nice clear line which they may not 'step across'? And, in fairness, have you read the COI guideline? It does not proscribe someone with a 'perceived' COI from editing.

COI is specifically defined: "Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest." COI is not simply having a POV, it is allowing that POV to influence your editing in an NPOV manner.

apparent COI is undefinable and is subject to interpretation. Peace.Lsi john

Paul said, “Avoid all appearance of evil” (I Thess. 5:22). In Jewish culture, the concept is called "marit ha'ayin". People have written about this idea for thousands of years. There must be something to it. Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Good topic for WP:DYK[reply]

Jehochman, I have not said there is nothing to the concept. There is a difference between a 'life plan' and 'formal rules'. It's like the famous qoute "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it." In our case, we must be able to define it, and 'apparent' COI, is open to too much subjective opinion. What is apparent to you, may not be apparent to me, and unless you can define it clearly, adding such wording to policies or guidelines is weasely (wiki word, not mine). Personally, I think you have lots of good ideas and I have respect for you and your ideas. In this case, the idea needs refined considerably. Peace.Lsi john 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Lsi john's view that "apparent" is a weasel word as it is used in the english language without that connotation. The concept relates to communicating one's intentions through one's work and publicized statements. I assert that avoiding the appearance of COI is a valid principle. There is truth in Jerhochman's statement concerning marit ha'ayin, (mutinous eye in Hebrew?) " just as a book of instructions should be unambiguous, so should our conduct (by not laying itself open to misinterpretation - the idea of marit ha-ayin)." I suggest that creating the apparency of COI has been ONE of the issues common to many cofs involved editors on Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing can be inferred based on an editor's closeness to a subject coupled with violations of other policies

2) Conflict of Interest editing can damage Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral source of information. We can reasonably infer COI editing when editors have a close connection to a subject, and violate policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL when editing that subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Aside from whether or not I agree with this, if I did, I don't think it would be an extension in policy; that we can make such an inference would be an interpretation of existing policy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Again, this is an extension of policy. This change would need to be done by community consensus. Arbcom finds on facts, based on rules currently in place. Arbcom (as a supreme court) would help interpret rules. But changes to policy or guidelines would need to be done by the community at the respective page. Peace.Lsi john 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking to change policy. In real life courts, it is possible to argue for an extension of the law, but I'm not completely sure how this forum works. Lsi john, as a party you shouldn't post in the others section. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is somewhat of a change because we are tying things like WP:CIVIL to WP:COI and I think that stretches the COI Guideline pretty thin. If an editor is making 'legitimate' edits and constantly removing POV or unsourced material and gets frustrated and reflects that in edit comments an interpretation of your words could be used to claim WP:COI. They might be an asshole, but that doesn't mean they are editing with COI. Peace.Lsi john 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see what you're driving at, Jehochman, this is somewhat out of step with precedents in tone and presentation. Durova^Charge! 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Only One User is permitted to edit from a Corporate IP Address Block as an Initial Measure for COI violation

3) Conflict of Interest can be restrained in part by permitting only one user to edit from a corporate IP address block as a remedy for COI violation per Durova's proposal:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:COI--Fahrenheit451 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's true that such a restraint could be imposed; is there evidence of community support for such a policy? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Not a good idea. Overly bureaucratic. Difficult to enforce. Jehochman ^Talk 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also not supported by current policy. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run checkuser all day and night. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I cite is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It doesn't say, "anyone, but only one per corporate subnet." Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it does not state that if you incorporate, you now can use sock and meat puppets. Anyone here means, any single entity.--Fahrenheit451 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain How it is overly bureaucratic and difficult to enforce.--Fahrenheit451 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman failed to explain what wikipedia policy this recommendation violated. There is no evidence that the scenario suggested by Jehochman would materialize; that is, "run checkuser all day and night."--Fahrenheit451 02:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who would decide which of two or more users who happen to work at the same company or other enterprise would be permitted to edit? Newyorkbrad 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be determined by an admin. The user who registered first would be the user who could edit.--Fahrenheit451 02:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And an international company with branches in china, russia and Germany? This restriction would be bad, because the Russian branch could not necessarily expect good representation from their Chinese or German sister branches. Peace.Lsi john 03:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored reply after your comment was. Your opinion of the restriction is unfounded. We are discussing a corporation which is a single legal entity. If that corporation does not coordinate their editing, that is their issue.--Fahrenheit451 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An intriguing idea. Suggest at least rewording to clarify the definition of "corporate". How would it dovetail with WP:AGF? Many new users make their first edits without registering an account - and would account registration be an exception to this restriction? The idea raises a lot of questions. I wonder if it would even be practicable or enforceable. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address would be THE user. Even if multiple individuals edited from the same IP address, that would be tantamount to one user. Abuses from that IP address would be treated as from the same user. WP:AGF is uneffected. If a there is a registered user from the corporate IP address, the first user is the only user allowed to edit from that IP address block. I don't see any enforcement difficulty.--Fahrenheit451 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if a university uses a single shared IP address, what do they do? Hold a lottery? Durova^Charge! 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have explicitly excluded educational institutions. I don't think we have seen any noteworthy COI situations from those.--Fahrenheit451 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've seen some noteworthy COI from universities and an off-wiki attack site criticized my handling of one of those cases. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible educational institution based violations would have to be handled on a case by case basis then.--Fahrenheit451 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my related proposal about COI? That wouldn't require making special cases of libraries, universities, and schools. Durova^Charge! 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link so I can read it. I may amend my proposal in light of yours.--Fahrenheit451 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:COI Durova^Charge! 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:MEAT

4) When multiple actors edit on behalf of an organizational interest, as opposed to their individual interests, then all shall be considered to be the same virtual person for the purpose of applying Wikipedia's policies. An organization cannot take multiple "bites of the apple" by sending an endless stream of editors. Warnings or blocks applied to one agent apply equally to all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps this is better than limiting to one editor per corporate subnet. This is more general, and probably easier to enforce. However, we still need to make a judgment as to whether editors are acting in a personal or corporate capacity, but I don't think there will ever be a way to avoid making that distinction. I think this is a way of looking at our existing policy WP:SOCK. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define on behalf of? Durova^Charge! 08:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On behalf of" is judged by factors such as tone of the edits, tendentiousness, editing that focuses exclusively on articles related to the organization, voluntary disclosures, IP address relating to the organization, and even username related to the organization. Does the organization seem to exercise control over their edits? Is there an "agency" or "apparent agency"? An apparent agency is when somebody appears to act on behalf of another entity, the entity knows about it, and does not disavow the relationship. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uneasy about the potential for wikilawyering. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:COI

5) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This passes the sniff test pretty well. All it's really saying is, if you're editing from (for example) a Microsoft IP, you'll be looked at very carefully if you edit Microsoft. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This seems flexible enough to cover decentralized corporations, universities, etc. without undue burden on editors who act in good faith. Durova^Charge! 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I support this proposal. I would hope, if implemented, that admins enforce violations of COI with blocks on corporate IP addresses.--Fahrenheit451 04:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Not a battleground

6) Collaboration and cooperation are fundamental to Wikipedia. This site's role is to describe controversial subjects rather than to become a focal point for controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 08:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:MEAT and WP:COI

7) Editors who access Wikipedia through the same organization's IP address or addresses, and who edit articles about that organization, may be regarded as meatpuppets if they cluster to take similar positions at COI-related article content disputes, community ban threads, or other consensus discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think if this limits itself to COI topics it would avoid collateral damage. For example, this wouldn't apply if a large university required all its freshmen to read Dante Alighieri and some of its students edited the biography article. But if several were backing each other in conflicts about that university's Wikipedia article, WP:DUCK. Feel welcome to modify the above; I lean toward weighing WP:AGF in the early stages. Durova^Charge! 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:AGF trumps WP:COI

7) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, WP:AGF trumps WP:COI. WP:AGF is a key principal of this project while WP:COI is not.

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."

If an editor claims that he is not editing from a function or position in an organization that would automatically engender a COI and that he is free to edit as pleases (not under a directive or constraint) then WP:AGF requires that the burden of proof of WP:COI is on objecting editor(s) to prove to the satisfaction of the community that the edits of the alleged COI editor show an inappropriate pattern. A simple WP:RFCU showing an corporate IP is insufficient to set aside WP:AGF if the editor claims no COI. --Justanother 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sure, but AGF becomes moot as soon as BF is shown -- for example, claiming no COI when a COI clearly exists (in the eyes of reasonable third parties.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you agree with my principal? I agree with your point that "AGF becomes moot as soon as BF is shown". As far as your example, let me say this; were a discussion on the implications of COFS editing from the Church proxy to have taken place on WP:COIN and neutral 3rd parties had come to the conclusion that a COI existed or neutral 3rd parties had advised on what might be the proper way for COFS to edit (or not edit) Wikipedia then we could say that "a COI clearly exists (in the eyes of reasonable third parties)" and it would be bad faith for COFS to continue to edit contrary to the recommendations of WP:COIN. That discussion did not happen because the process was short-circuited. --Justanother 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Response to User:Kwsn and general clarification: In a "normal" case the inappropriate pattern will precede the WP:RFCU or the disclosure or adjudication of COI. In other words, the "offending editor" will show an abusive pattern and it will come to light or be adjudicated that there is a COI issue. In this case we have a situation where an editor called for a WP:RFCU looking for a possible WP:SOCK issue. No evidence of sockpuppetry was found but a number of otherwise unrelated editors were found to be editing from a Church of Scientology-owned proxy server (gateway). Some editors have claimed that the simple fact of editing from this proxy server engenders a conflict of interest. I say that use of the proxy is not, a priori, a WP:COI, that WP:AGF requires that the burden of proving or showing an abusive editing pattern indicative of COI remains on those editors that object; they cannot simply exclude every editor that edits from a certain IP no matter who owns the IP.--Justanother 15:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. What part of this trumps WP:COI after a checkuser result comes in? Durova^Charge! 18:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be extending that to read: Actions inconsistent with good faith include editing from a corporate IP, repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. My question to you is: without making any change to WP:AGF, what part of that indicates that editing from a corporate IP is "inconsistent with good faith"? --Justanother 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, given that checkuser does not provide confirmed evidence of "...repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.", and even if it confirmed 'sockpuppetry' (which it doesn't necessarily), it certainly doesn't confirm ' malicious sockpuppetry'..

My three questions for you are:

What exactly do you believe that a checkuser result provides?
Where is the guideline that allows you to assume bad faith upon a checkuser result, in the absense of any other damning evidence?
Where in your AGF guidline does it say 'a checkuser result' is an example of an action inconsistent with good faith?

Peace.Lsi john 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what Justanother proposes is true, and WP:AGF trumps WP:COI, in theory the community should still be assuming good faith about MyWikiBiz. It also sounds like Justanother is essentially stating that checkuser should be disregarded or not used because we don't know who specifically is using the computer at the IPs in question. In this case the specific who isn't as important as where, the information tells us that some edits are made from dedicated CoS IPs. Justanother told me earlier that the CoS does not offer open access for it's members and only staff or someone who happens to be staying at a hotel in Fl. If what he told me is accurate, all we need to know is employees or volunteers from the CoS are editing Wikipedia from CoS computers. Anynobody 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN, I have already entered into evidence my considered and complete opinion as to whom might be sitting at a computer with a CoS proxy IP address, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence#We cannot make assumptions of "who" is editing from a Church IP without evidence. Please disregard any previous answer I may have given you less formally as incomplete. Thank you. --Justanother 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your statement and it still doesn't say the CoS allows the general public to use it's computers. It admits the possibility that church volunteers could be using the IPs, and states that the CoS owns several hotels. You do understand that a volunteer or member would have just as much of a COI as an employee right? If I understand you, we should assume the editors in question live in or extensively travel using CoS hotels while editing Wikipedia? Anynobody 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the general public. But "public" Scientologists like myself, sure. I am not specifically speaking about COFS or any other specific editor and not trying to say anything about who they may be or their relationship to the CoS; they can do that for themselves. I am saying that it is not unusual for Scientologists to stay in a Church hotel for weeks or even months while they do their training and processing at advanced organizations. It is conceivable that a Scientologist with no formal ties to the Church, i.e. not Church staff or Sea Org, could edit regularly using the Church gateway for a somewhat extended period. That is all I am saying in the evidence, that we cannot assume. --Justanother 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, arbitration principles have broad application beyond the case at hand. If you mean to interpret WP:AGF so that it excludes a checkuser finding, take care to define exactly how much far you mean to extend the reach of AGF over COI. If AGF always trumps COI then we might as well mark the COI guideline as historical. Where would I, as an investigator, cease giving weight to an editor's protestations and page protect an article? Where are the reasonable distinctions from friendly suggestions to warnings to blocks? I don't enjoy using sysop tools, but when it's necessary to do so I try to be consistent and fair. I think the present wording would hamstring a lot of legitimate investigations. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of evidence to the contrary... we don't get to assume that a potential conflict of interest equates to COI editing violations, and if someone says they do not have 'COI', then unless they demonstrate otherwise, we must assume they are being truthful. And, personally, I'd rather risk hamstringing a legitimate investigation if it means stopping a witchhunt against an otherwise innocent editor. To do otherwise suggests the end justifies the bodycount. Peace.Lsi john 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to exclude a checkuser result as evidence, I'm not sure what evidence you mean. Nor is it clear what you mean by potential conflict of interest. It appears that you're asking the Committee to make a major statement in the service of your viewpoint on a single dispute. The best chance of getting acceptance is if you define the margins of this proposal and minimize its negative impact elsewhere in the project. What does constitute demonstration of COI, in your view? In what situations doesn't AGF trump COI? Durova^Charge! 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude it as evidence of 'what'? I asked you (above) and you've ignored my questions. You continue to mis-interpret my statements, yet you object when I provide an interpretation for yours. Please tell us exactly what 'evidence' you believe a checkuser result provides. You have been simply pointing to it as 'evidence', without saying what crime you consider it to provide evidence of. Please be clear. Peace.Lsi john 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:COI. Durova^Charge! 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, again you've avoided the question with misdirection and implication, and left me to 'guess' what I will about finding your answer in that link. If the questions were too complicated, just say so and I'll try to phrase them more clearly. I assumed they were simple enough to understand.

First, there is NOTHING that talks about CHECKUSER in your link here, so suggesting it addresses my question is absurd. Second, checkuser does not reveal the IP, it only indicates that accounts are related 'in some way'. Third, having a conflict of interest does not imply bad faith or POV editing. Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence a checkuser does NOT indicate COI. If I had any good faith left to give you, I'd assume you are simply 'assuming' we know what your evidence and logic is. But since I don't have any AGF or respect left for you, I assume you're simply being evasive to avoid direct questions and to keep up the charade. Peace.Lsi john 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Is the connection really so hard to discern? When a checkuser result reveals that one or more IP addresses resolve to Organization X, and the IPs and/or registered accounts have been editing Wikipedia's articles about Organization X, then there exists a presumptive conflict of interest. As I've stated before, there's a difference between the existence of a conflict of interest and violation of the conflict of interest guideline. There's no problem with the COI guideline if the editor reverts breaching experiments or removes unsourced negative biographical material in accordance with WP:BLP. If that editor posts a suggested major edit to the article talk page and then opens an article content WP:RFC that brings in a consensus of positive comments, then I doubt there would be a guideline violation if the editor then implemented the suggested change at the article. Another way of expressing this is that editors who make use of Organization X's servers ought to bear in mind that their actions appear to represent that organization. Ultimately Organization X does bear some responsibility since they allowed the use of their equipment. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: To those who are unfamiliar with the background here, I apologize in advance for my bluntness. However, I have tried far to long to be 'polite' and have 'danced around words', so as to not offend Durova. I've tried privately and publically, with the patience of a saint. It seems that she has barricaded herself behind a 3' concrete wall, and has refused to even once consider (let alone acknowledge) that there is any possibility that anything I've ever said has even a remote possibility of credibility. Not once. As often as not, her responses have nothing whatsoever to do with my original post/question. Every single post from her has been that she's right and I'm too stupid or too new to understand, and that I don't have her 'experience' and I need mentoring. My patience with her is gone. My AGF with her is gone. And my respect for her is gone. If that is incivil, then I'm guilty.

Durova, yes, it really is that hard to read your mind. It's also incredibly unfair to expect people to 'know' what you are thinking. I asked you a direct question. At first you ignored me, and then you gave me an indirect answer by referral. You carefully avoided answering the questions and thus you avoided any possibility of having someone refute your answer. Now, your passive-voice weasely answer still doesn't really address my question and is full of IFs and implications, that you adeptly managed to not directly link to COFS.

Regarding your edit-comment for civlity, your consistently bad faith interpretations and misrepresentations of out-of-context events is only trumped by your attempts to distract us with requests for civility. In the face of your conduct, I really have no idea how you expect me to be more civil. In virtually every post you have either insulted me, accused me of misconduct, or told me I was wrong and you were right. And, not once have I officially complained about your insulting conduct. You consistently skim my posts and then misrepresent them in some bizzare answer that only barely relates to a concern I've raised. When I question your actions, you cry NPA. When I question your interpretation of events, you cry CIVIL. Justanother challenges your misuse of CSN and you attack him with insultingly absurd evidence and imply that it is damning. What is so difficult about directly addressing the COFS issue?

Allow me to directly address your answer:

A) " Is the connection really so hard to discern? "

To use your own complaints: Less sarcasm, more civility please. Don't be condescending, thanks.

Personally I don't care if you're condescending. But since you are doing the very thing that you are objecting to elsewhere and I believe it's only fair to "return in kind that which is given".

B) " When a checkuser result reveals that one or more IP addresses resolve to Organization X, and the IPs and/or registered accounts have been editing Wikipedia's articles about Organization X, then there exists a presumptive conflict of interest.

Let's count the number of ways this is wrong.

1) Checkuser does not disclose an IP, or some checkuser admin would lose their tools. Therefore, the knowledge of the IP was additional information and thus OUTSIDE the checkuser result.

2) Checkuser does not tie IPs to Editors, or some checkuser admin would lose their tools.

3) Checkuser does not provide information about where an IP resolves. Again, knowing this constitutes having additional information.

4) There is no rule/guideline that says that "there exists a presumptive conflict of interest". Deciding whether or not we can presume it, is the one of the reasons the arbitrators accepted the case. You're using a 'finding' before its been 'found', demonstrating bad faith. True, you'd like to obtain such a ruling in order to exonerate your bad faith, but there doesn't yet exist one.

C) "As I've stated before, there's a difference between the existence of a conflict of interest and violation of the conflict of interest guideline."

Yet, you cited a checkuser result as demonstrating COI, and then, with no other evidence at hand, assumed bad faith and 'went after' COFS, whom you presumed has a COI, based on the checkuser, and then treated/prosecuted and condemned and threatened with 3 month ban, as if s/he had violated the COI guideline. (Any 'research' you've done subsequent to CSN is covering your ass, and should have been done prior to issuing your verdict, which you gave pretty much at the outset).

D) "There's no problem with the COI guideline if the editor reverts breaching experiments or removes unsourced negative biographical material in accordance with WP:BLP. If that editor posts a suggested major edit to the article talk page and then opens an article content WP:RFC that brings in a consensus of positive comments, then I doubt there would be a guideline violation if the editor then implemented the suggested change at the article. Another way of expressing this is that editors who make use of Organization X's servers ought to bear in mind that their actions appear to represent that organization. Ultimately Organization X does bear some responsibility since they allowed the use of their equipment.

Let's start counting again.

1) If, if, if, if.. we are dealing with COFS (whom I assume is a living breathing person, not an IF).. there are no IF's here. Either COFS DID or DID NOT violate NPOV/BLP/COI. Stop making general passive/aggressive attacks and cite hard fact. Was there a violation or not? None of this relates to my question. Did you even read my questions?

2) There is no guideline/policy/ruling that makes the claim that anyone's actions 'appear to represent an organization'. Unless you know the IP they are using, the edits are all anonymous and don't appear to represent anyone. And, if we are going to allow 'appearance' to be used as evidence, are you giving me permission to describe the appearance of your conduct from the start of this situation? Because it appears very self serving to me. To wit: attacking Justanother because he criticized you.

3) bear some responsibility - Oh how I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Could you be any less specific and still make an accusation? Responsibility for WHAT? For violations? ok, fine. But were there any? Are you sure they 'allowed the use of their equipment'? Perhaps there was theft and hacking involved?

4) And saving the best for last, is your newly invented policy that prohibits someone from making changes to an article without an RFC and discussion, simply because there is a COI attached. Not only does no such policy exist, I believe you have just contradicted your statement that you separate COI from COI violations. And you clearly indicate BAD FAITH assumption, by requiring the person to jump through hops prior to making their proposed edits. How about instead: we let them edit, and if its NPOV, we ban their sorry ass for COI violations?

Your attitude and refusal to budge 1mm is exactly why I wanted to withdraw from this. Unfortunately, I was told that I can't withdraw. After counting the number of 'challenges' you've issued to bring evidence against you, and the number of times you've said you'd be vindicated by arbitration, and your decisions would withstand scrutiny, and you look forward to clearing your name of suspicion , I'm more convinced now than I was before that you opened this arbitration for the sole reason of vindication.

Durova, I'm not expecting you to apologize, because I know now that your vanity won't permit it. But I am expecting you to drop this nonsense and move on. Stop with the silly edit summaries. Stop with the crazy accusations about 'secret clubs'. Stop going after people who legitimately question you. Stop trying to get vindication. Stop trying to make this arbitration about Durova. Peace.Lsi john 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who sees it as ironic that this appears at a proposal about the primacy of WP:AGF? Durova^Charge! 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Justanother proposed this, I didn't. However, parts seems reasonable, others do not. Example, most editors do no claim what the example person did, and just go ahead and do it. I myself have a COI with Milwaukee Electric Tool (a member in my family works there), so I keep away from it content wise (minus vandalism and whatnot). If an RFCU request comes back with the fact that the "claimed innocent" is editing from a corporate IP and has been editing that company's article(s), it is very hard not to assume COI. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign. --Justanother 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is very faulty and certainly appears to be coming from highly parochial motivations. If COI exists it can only be acknowledged and dealt with as COI. Other editors and admins need not be brainwashed with false beliefs forced into a policy by parochial interests.--Fahrenheit451 04:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness of COI

8) Editors affected by a WP:COI are likely to be unaware of it's affect on their editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Most people seem to think they can put their feelings aside and be unaffected by WP:COI issues. Solution suggested below. Anynobody 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This manages to be both trivial and wrong at the same time. "Editors affected by" their mood, their education, their intelligence, their coffee intake are likely to be unaware of it's affect [sic] on their editing. Or maybe they are aware. Trivial. Wrong (or at least unsupported by any proof). And Anynobody is not talking about COI here. He is talking about strong feelings or beliefs; he equates strong feelings to COI, diff. A rather novel interpretation. --Justanother 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to build a usable principle around this. We can't read people's minds and intuit their level of awareness. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Holding a minority opinion and having strong feelings about it does not constitute COI

9) Shouldn't even have to say this but there is a disturbing element to this arbitration that speaks against that basic concept. And against another basic concept of intellectual discourse; that intelligent people can, in good faith, strongly disagree. --Justanother 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nobody is suggesting that though. In this case the conflict of interest occurs when members of the group itself edit from said groups IP addresses or spend a majority of their time trying to affect the overall POV regarding it. These are actions which show something beyond a common disagreement.

The principle you propose assumes merely having strong feelings about a minority opinion is the issue being addressed here, it isn't. IMHO when these feelings and opinions outweigh logic and restraint is when the WP:COI issue should come up. Anynobody 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you suggest that; on your talk page you say that strong feelings engender inappropriate editing that can be defined as COI, here. Are you backing away from the position you took on your talk page? --Justanother 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I doubt it's necessary to state this as a principle, I agree. WP:COI is different from WP:NPOV. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually what I said. Anynobody 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN, you link to same diff as me, the one where you append this: "This typically happens when one edits subjects they have strong feelings about" to a definition of COI. COI and strong feelings are not related; one can have a completely mercenary, dispassionate, attitude while editing from a COI and, on the other hand, a person can be very passionate and still exhibit NPOV in their mainspace edits (you know, the ones that count, as far as this being an encyclopedia). AN, you are connecting apples and Hondas. --Justanother 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This proposal is very faulty and appears to originate from parochial interests. The fact is: Holding ANY opinion and having strong feelings about it MAY lead to a conflict of interest situation. This proposal seems intent on brainwashing editors and admins to ignore what they see in front of them.--Fahrenheit451 04:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, the proposal does not contradict your statement. The propsal says it does not constitute (equate to) COI. It does not say it can't lead to COI. And, it doesn't say COI can't be present. When you changed the wording, you created a straw-man argument. Peace.Lsi john 05:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of the bigger group does not mean you are NPOV/neutral

10) Being in the dominant or larger group does not imply neutrality nor does it remove the possibility of WP:COI. It simply means that you are in the larger group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As above, I agree with statements that express WP:NPOV as theoretically distinct from WP:COI. I doubt the need for findings along these lines, though. Durova^Charge! 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Corollary to #9. Even if we have others following our lead, we might not be coming from a position of open minded neutrality if we feel that these people have tried our patience long enough. And, more importantly, we might not even realize it. Peace.Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That first quote is either too subtle or not subtle enough, depending on its intent.SheffieldSteel 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs to italicized bits that I assume are quotations. Thanks. --Justanother 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not necessarily relevant. Merely an example of a possibly held 'viewpoint' which would indicate potential non-neutrality to the overall situation. Peace.Lsi john 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Justanother, after further reflection on your question, I think more of an explanation may be in order.

I do not believe that the fact that someone actually said that is as relevant as what we can derive from the words/statement itself. The concept I'm presenting is subtle and I don't want it to be distracted by the details of he-said/she-said and what their motives were. And, in so much as the words may not have correctly conveyed their intended meaning, it gives even more strength to the concept of assuming good faith in all areas of this arbitration.

This case is about COI. But, at its core, COI represents any conflict of interest. Fundamentally COI reflects a bias toward a viewpoint or attitude that affects one's ability to act fairly and impartially. The Wikipedia guideline is a specific subset related to comerical interests.

In this arbitration, much has been said about the 'appearance of COI'. Though, I prefer the term 'perception'. And it has been suggested to me that 'perception is reality'. This relates to the italicized text because a) my 'initial perception' (reality) was one of serious COI against COFS and b) my 'subsequent perception' (reality), after a limited explanation of the words, was one of COI against the entire group on both sides, and a determination to 'stop the nonsense' (regardless of who paid the fine). Those were my realities. They may not be shared by anyone else. In either case, the words indicate (to me) a pre-determined attitude related the situation and reflect a non-neutral position. (Hence POV and COI).

Given the opinions expressed, on this page, that we should 'avoid the appearance' of COI, it's more about the words themselves, than who said them or what they 'really' meant. There was clearly an appearance of POV & COI sent along with the words.

To those who object to my loosened usage of COI, feel free to replace it with Conflicting Intentions, Conflicting Commitments, or Conflicting Desires.

Hopefully this helps better explain my meaning. Peace.Lsi john 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I think that rather than trying to extend the definition of COI to include all forms of supposed non-neutrality that we WP:KISS and simply call wrong actions "wrong" and call bias "bias". COI can be defined as "serving two masters" or, more usually, "pretending to serve one master while actually serving another." And I do not include one's own feelings or beliefs as one of the masters. We, as editors, are supposed to be serving Wikipedia here and the creation of an encyclopedia. That we have strong feelings about some topic or other is irrelevant; that is not COI. When an editor pretends to serve Wikipedia but is actually making edits that potentially benefit the editor tangibly (not just subjectively) then a conflict of interest exists. --Justanother 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'title' section included NPOV, not COI. I added COI to explain where the source of the NPOV actions/statements. Conflict of Goals is the source, NPOV is the result. Peace.Lsi john 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocklogs are not sufficient evidence to condemn. At most they indicate a situation which needs to be investigated.

11) Blocklogs, in and of themselves, are insufficient evidence for several reasons.

a) Strictly by observation, the final blocking admin did not find sufficient grounds to indef block. Thus, clearly, at a minimum, more evidence is required beyond the final block or the last blocking admin was negligent and too soft.

b) Many blocks are done on the good-faith of POV evidence. Some are reversed after further investigation, some are not investigated.

c) Blocks that seemed to be correct at the time are subsequently (after they have expired) found to have been incorrect, or were controversial at the time. These block logs are not always updated to reflect this. (e.g. In this specific arbcom, one of the blocks by ChrisO was for 'removing links'. While a block may have seemed appropriate at the time (i.e. no wrong doing or bad faith on the part of ChrisO), we've now been told that a review of the article shows those links are still removed. Looking back, even if we didn't have any other reasons, we could reasonably apply WP:IAR to the 'removal' of those links and demonstrate that COFS was acting in the interest of Wikipedia/ Yet the block log has not been updated to reflect this.)

d) Controversial blocks are marginal/questionable by definition. Yet the blocklogs rarely indicate that it was a controversial or highly disputed block.

Peace.Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Object to the wording as overly legalistic. Wikipedians don't convict editors, and remedies are preventative rather than punitive. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral: While block logs may show that an editor may have been abusive in the past, it does not mean they are currently (I know there was a recent ArbCom case regarding this). On the other hand, an extensive block log may show that the user has exhausted the community's willingness to deal with the user. By the way, this is User:Kwsn here, I'm on a different computer and I didn't bother logging on. 72.131.60.56 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser does not PROVE sock usage, nor does it demonstrate Conflict of Interest, and thus should not be used as 'evidence of guilt' for either one.

12) A checkuser result of Confirmed only confirms that there is a common IP(s) usage between users. In the absence of any additional information this result should not be cited as proof of sock puppetry. Peace.Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A checkuser result of 'confirmed' only confirms common ip usage and suggests 'some' connection between the editors.

In a situation where the IP(s) are dynamic, and overlapping usage is found during time periods, then the probability is high that the accounts are socks of each other. (Or husband and wife?).

In a situation (such as this arbitration) where the shared IP(s) are network 'gateways', then the it is reasonable to believe that the accounts represent individual and separate users. COI may apply, but without more information COI cannot be inferred from the checkuser result.

Given that this detailed network and IP information is not disclosed by the checkuser admin, we cannot draw any specific conclusions about the full meaning of a 'Confirmed' checkuser result beyond the accounts are somehow related. Peace.Lsi john 13:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing is a mainspace problem and charges of COI must be based on abusive edits that have the clear goal of forwarding a COI in mainspace.

13) WP:COI repeatedly says things like "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all." COI is the use of Wikipedia articles to further one's own tangible interest(s). It is NOT about violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF or WP:DICK or whatever in talk pages. Those are separate issues and there are separate policies to deal with them. COI is a type of abusive editing that occurs in main article space. If a pattern of editing exists which consistently violates NPOV then that should be fairly easy to demonstrate using mainspace edits. As a supplement, if there are talk page comments that clarify that the abusive mainspace edits are due to COI then those talk page comments might be relevant. But the real proof is in the abusive pattern of mainspace edits and such a pattern must exist before we charge another editor with WP:COI. Otherwise we are violating WP:AGF because the editor has not been shown to have done anything wrong. --Justanother 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it a bit in view of Durova and Jehochman's objections. --Justanother 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again. If the edits are not aimed at changing mainspace to the tangible betterment of the COI editor then there is no real COI problem. --Justanother 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly object. This would open the door to abusive practices in a variety of places, most notably WP:AFD. I can point to an instance where that contributed significantly to a community ban. Contact me offline for details (that individual has exercised the right to vanish, so unfortunately this offer extends only to the Committee). Durova^Charge! 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly abuse of AfD, RfC, etc. can be included in what I would term "abusive editing that could be motivated by a COI". I am mainly aiming this as "User:Joe said this on a talk page so he must be editing abusively." That is, IMO, hogwash. COI editing is abusive editing, it is not an expression of a belief or a sharp tongue or bad advice to another editor or a bad joke or what have you. It is not IDONTLIKEIT, IDONTLIKEWHATHESAID. That is NOT COI. --Justanother 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you conclude that COI should be circumscribed to mainspace on that basis or what systematic problem would be resolved by doing so. If some editor confuses COI with other guidelines and policies, open an article content RFC or try mediation. This proposal would cause serious problems. Durova^Charge! 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the adjustment, but my objection remains. I'll add another aspect to the objection above: this confuses the existence of a conflict of interest with violation of the conflict of interest guideline. It's possible to possess a conflict of interest and edit in accordance with all policies and guidelines - even in mainspace. For example, if a Microsoft employee reverts obvious vandalism at the Microsoft article. Durova^Charge! 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Using Wikipedia talk pages to ask somebody else to make improper edits is also a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we ever see anything like that we hardly need WP:COI to address it. --Justanother 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it could be necessary to invoke WP:COI. See WP:CANVASS. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opppose current wording. Just because someone has a conflict of interest does not mean the edits are going to be abusive and/or NPOV. I go around AfD from time to time and sometimes the articles involving COI are pretty neutral, but the user writing it obviously shares a name with the topic at hand. This usually isn't the only reason to delete it, just gives more incentive to do so. However, I'll agree, there are abusive incidents of COI, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rosner (the article is now about a scientist). Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Justanother meant "npov editing" derived from a Conflict of Interest, and simply called it "COI Editing". It seems he's guilty of mixing the usage of a) the state of 'having COI' with b) the act of making "NPOV COI edits". (Since he griped about my using a relaxed definition of COI in my above statement) heh. Peace.Lsi john 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

14) The threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:NOT

15) Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox. Offsite recruitment of like-minded people is not an acceptable way to resolve perceived problems in article balance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:NPOV

16) A neutral point of view does not assert one perspective as truth or act in service to the promotional aims of any group or organization. Since the neutral point of view is depent upon verifiable and reliable sources, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to correct perceived imbalances in real world reportage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by parties:

We should stick to the facts at hand. Fubar Obfusco, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Take these complaints elsewhere, please. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Submit evidence, please, before proposing conclusions. Wikipedia arbitration handles matters at Wikipedia. This is very strong stuff. No opinion yet except disappointment that a very large and heavy cart has been set before any horse. Durova^Charge! 18:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

These facts are well-documented in the cited sources from the above-linked articles. --FOo 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is very dangerous for the Arbitration Committee to form a position on the Church of Scientology as a whole. This is Wikipedia; let's focus on what happened here. Sean William @ 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, I think it would be very dangerous for the Arbitration Committee to ignore larger organizational behavior patterns, of which the actions on Wikipedia form only a small part. --FOo 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The organizational patterns are relevant only to the extent that those patterns influence WP:COI in the cofs-connected editors.--Fahrenheit451 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The items listed above do not relate to 'this case'. To my knowledge there have been no lawsuits filed wrt COFS/Misou/et al. and no 'history of attacks' on publishers or writers. Peace.Lsi john 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Scientology, it is about Conflicts of interest

4) In this case lies the essence of why WP:COI exists, editing to advance outside interests.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest.
— Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

The concept Scientology could easily be exchanged with the Paranormal which is also the subject of a recent arbcom. COI does not dictate people who believe in the paranormal are forbidden to edit related articles. Presuming they abide by ideas like WP:V, WP:RS, etc. all are welcome. In regard to the paranormal, most if not all acceptable (by the standards just mentioned) references do not give the authenticity believers think they should. Editors who are unable to accept this are more likely to make contributions designed to enhance their groups exposure rather than expand Wikipedia in the way it was meant to be.

Like Paranormal, this boils down to editors who believe mainstream sources don't provide the tools to create what they perceive as WP:NPOV articles. To fix this they either advocate loosening the standards, or simply ignoring perfectly valid references in the name of WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence, Anynobody 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person editing under a conflict of interest is a person with an outside interest in the subject at hand, either positive or negative, and consistently makes edits like those in my evidence: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence#COFS (talk • contribs • logs) is an example of how WP:COI leads to other trouble. Anynobody 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. Durova^Charge! 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it may seem a bit like stating the obvious, but some might see it differently and argue this is about Scientology itself. It's my understanding that ideally the principles established in this case would be applicable to other COI issues in different topics. (If the case were a solution for Scientology COIs only it might seem like we're treating them differently IMHO.) Anynobody 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only extent to which this is in doubt, Anynobody, is what I discern through a critical reading of your own posts to this case. Durova^Charge! 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be more specific? To clarify the way I understand this issue to be is like this:

Problem: COI, Subject: Scientology, Concern: Edits made by members from Scientology IP addresses on Scientology related articles. Proof: Except for Su-Jada, all the accounts tracked to the IPs have 100 % of their most edited articles Scientology related. Whereas editors like Justanother who is a member, but not editing from the IPs in question, has 73% of the items on his list related to the CoS. Anynobody 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes your point more clear. Still, I don't see the need for this. Durova^Charge! 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that the principles established or clarified here could be applied to similar situations in the future. For hypothetical example, a flood of edits to the Westboro Baptist Church from their IP which violate policies and guidelines. It's easy for me to see situations like this popping up with groups besides Scientology. Anynobody 02:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

And 'Conflict of Interest' requires that we demonstrate that an editor has edited with bias in a way that inhibited the advancement of the aims of Wikipedia in deference to their outside interests. For example, if a user 'always' and 'only' removes 'unsourced negative information', are they editing with Conflict of Interest? If their edits are in keeping with wikipedia sourcing policies, are they guilty of COI? I think not. However, if so, then should we not also apply the same standard to those who 'only' remove 'unsourced positive information'? Peace.Lsi john 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSN usage.

5) The current usage of WP:CSN bypasses the normal WP:DR process and allows disputes to be escalated without going through normal dispute resolution steps.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Object, obviously. This puts the cart before the horse. If any evidence for this is forthcoming I can cite plenty in refutation, but the matter belongs on the evidence page before it comes here. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I may expand on that theme later. --Justanother 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The people one is arguing with are the least likely to be believed by a COI editor. Anynobody 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence presented by Anynobody

Yeah, "paid for his work" is kinda peculiar. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

COFS on WP:AGF, WP:STALK, and WP:NPOV

Comment by Arbitrators:

Don't know where AGF or NPOV fits into this evidence at all; at most, it's a refutation of an accusation of stalking, made with an automated tool that stuck the "good faith" language in there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

History for Cult Awareness Network article and COFS first edit. Hours before there was a discussion which may have in fact led to the wikistalking allegations, [1]. Naturally one wonders what the warning was refering to; [2]. The script may have added the WP:AGF point, but the tone of the summary indicated to me a complete lack of good faith.

m (Reverted good faith edits by Tilman; "wikistalking"? Rather explain this NPOV violation, please. . using TW)

Anynobody 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

And are you taking it in the context of the surrounding edits? Or cherry picking one edit comment and applying the same bad-faith that you're accusing COFS of? Peace.Lsi john 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS on WP:3RR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure what the point is here, other than an exaggeration in an edit summary. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

History - Please note the number of COI editors and their frequency of editing.

This paragraph, which has references is trying to be removed by the COI editors. Here Su-Jada removes it. It was returned and then removed by COFS whose edit summary was Undid revision 139694507. This is robotical and probably 12RR on your part by now with all admins sleeping.. If one looks at the history for the page, 12RR doesn't even come close to describing the situation and implies gross wrong doing on the part of the other editor. Anynobody 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

COFS on "attack the attacker" policy of the CoS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

COFS marks one section as original research, which looks kinda bogus; COFS also puts a {{fact}} tag on an unsourced statement Many of Scientology's critics have also reported they were subject to threats and harassment in their private life. Certainly that latter needs sources, even if it happens to be absolutely true; it's those absolutely true things that should be the easiest to find sources for, one would think. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I had assumed the diffs would be analyzed more than they were, so I apologize if they seem snide. They were designed to let the information available speak for itself, and minimize any commentary by me.

References before fact tag, the assertion could've been sourced using one of the references either on the page itself or one of the other Scientology articles. As one who edits several CoS topics COFS should have known this but instead the edit summary cites other, less relevant, concerns. Anynobody 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 ::
+===Motion to clearly state the charges===
-===Template===
+) I have been reading through lots of garble and comments and whatnot here. What are the charges exactly and why is Durova so eager to get COFS banned? I want this clearly stated. [[User:Misou|Misou]] 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-)
 :'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''

Revision as of 22:08, 18 July 2007

Motions and requests by the parties

COFS is away until July 14

Motion to close due to lack of evidence

Motion to include the correct use of WP:CSN in this arbitration

Motion to clearly state the charges

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Editors should avoid creating the appearance of COI violations

COI editing can be inferred based on an editor's closeness to a subject coupled with violations of other policies

Only One User is permitted to edit from a Corporate IP Address Block as an Initial Measure for COI violation

WP:MEAT

WP:COI

WP:NOT#Not a battleground

WP:MEAT and WP:COI

WP:AGF trumps WP:COI

Awareness of COI

Holding a minority opinion and having strong feelings about it does not constitute COI

Being a member of the bigger group does not mean you are NPOV/neutral

Blocklogs are not sufficient evidence to condemn. At most they indicate a situation which needs to be investigated.

Checkuser does not PROVE sock usage, nor does it demonstrate Conflict of Interest, and thus should not be used as 'evidence of guilt' for either one.

COI editing is a mainspace problem and charges of COI must be based on abusive edits that have the clear goal of forwarding a COI in mainspace.

WP:V

WP:NOT

WP:NPOV

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Several accounts from one IP

Scientology in general

Church of Scientology history of suppressing information

This is not about Scientology, it is about Conflicts of interest

WP:CSN usage.

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Article probation

WP:COIN should be better utilized

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Analysis of evidence presented by Anynobody

COFS is an example of how WP:COI leads to other trouble

COFS on WP:OR

COFS falsely accuses Tilman of vandalism.

COFS on POV.

COFS on WP:AGF, WP:STALK, and WP:NPOV

COFS on WP:3RR

COFS on "attack the attacker" policy of the CoS.

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion