Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:21, 26 June 2007

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

User:COFS

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is an impossible format. Advise taking it to RfAr (and/or RFC). Topic ban while these efforts are undertaken, so long as they are, speedily. El_C 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This Scientologist editor has engaged in large numbers of edits apparently intended to whitewash the main Scientology article. Although COFS has stated a desire to follow the rules of wikipedia, their responses to other editors have frequently not been WP:CIVIL both on Talk:Scientology and in edit comments. COFS has been previously blocked and has also been warned regarding violation of conflict of interest guidelines(see above links for details) but these attempts do not seem to have helped much. When I raised this issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard, I got this suggestion:

How about taking this to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this post. SheffieldSteel 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please? Also, where are the "past investigations"? Blueboy 96 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this refers to the checkuser / SPA block, linked above. SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, and applicable here; Historically, you will garner more discussion if you post your case in full w/ evidence here instead of directing the participants to evidence located elsewhere.

As requested. COFS has...

[1] Moved cited material into a footnote. The material had the effect of calling into question the pro-Scientology point immediately preceding it in the text, yet the edit comment was "synthesis".
[2] Again moved the criticism into a footnote, while misrepresenting the court document source and referring to it in the edit comment as "clarification".
[3] Commented that editors should not attempt to obtain consensus before making sweeping changes to controversial articles.
[4] Removed cited material which contradicted an assertion attributed to L Ron Hubbard. Note the aggressive edit comment.
[5] Argued against several editors that this article's lead should not contain a summary of the criticism in the article. Note referring to other users' posts as "nonsense".
[6] Accused a good faith editor of "blind bashing" Scientology for restoring a summary of criticism.

This is just a small sample, from what I have encountered directly. COFS has a prodigious contributions history (except for the period of the ban) centred overwhelmingly on Scientology. COFS's Talk page (and particularly the archive) are a record of many attempts by other users to attempt to reason with her/him. SheffieldSteel 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those, sounds like at minimum an indefinite ban on editing Scientology-related articles is merited. The community can impose topic bans. Would also think he should be required to read and understand WP:CIVIL, WP:COI and WP:NPA, and post a statement that he's done so and apologize to everyone he's offended. Blueboy 96 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with a topic ban at least, but in light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS I have my doubts that this user would respect a topic ban. Has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for earlier dispute resolution, I believe someting was posted on AN/I but I have yet to find it. I'm sorry if I've handled this improperly - this is the first time I've done anything like this. Would starting an RfC be the best step to take next? SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if you believe other steps in the dispute resolution would work, to include RFC, try them. Navou 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:ANI isn't part of the dispute resolution process. I agree this is a problematic editor and I can agree to a Scientology topic ban based on what you've presented, along with the editor's block log and checkuser results. But all out sitebanning is a serious matter and I hesitate to line up behind it at this point. Proposing three month Scientology topic ban and a referral to WP:3O or mediation. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Durova, except given the apparent conflict of interest the topic ban should be indefinite. Blueboy 96 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree after visiting the links and checking up on some of this user's past behavior that a long-term (ideally indefinite) topic ban should be initiated. All out bans are not really necessary unless a user is causing widespread problems but this user is consistently threatening the integrity of wikipedia on matters related to scientology.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did anybody note that COFS has not said anything here yet. Last time I checked Sheffield did not even bother to inform her about this little talk here. I have been attacked for being some kind of puppet of COFS. I am not. But this case has shown the nice little witch hunts going on Scientologists, especially those WHO ARE COMPLETELY OPEN ABOUT IT. Which is something you are just about to punish. Better be super-anonymousy, eh? Better be silent about viewpoints or affiliations. Just like Sheffield and the other anti-Scientology editors in Wikipedia whose ONLY contribution is anti-Scientology, which is a classic for WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. Thanks for reading, sorry for chiming in so loud. I just couldn't stand this cosy Scientologist-bashing here. Apologies again if anybody feels offended. “Who among you is without a sin, let him throw the first stone at her” (John 8:7). Misou 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) I haven't "sinned" in the Scientology article space. Your post is rhetoric. This board functions on the basis of logic. Why don't you invite User:COFS to comment, instead of inflaming the dispute? I was just at her talk page about to invite her when I saw a comment there that seemed to link to this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmm. She's known for at least a day, commented on it, and chose not to rebutt on it here. While I wouldn't go so far as to say its an admission of guilt, I would say its a sign of bad faith on this matter and that this clearly isn't going to get solved without community intervention.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being rhetoric, please (WP:WEASEL). I think she's not there. Haven't gotten an email reply either. Misou 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is completely unrelated, I would love to learn how someone can be rhetoric. Last I checked only an idea or statement can actually be rhetoric. Perhaps the word you were looking for was rhetorical? In which case, no, I see no reason to attempt to persuade as you are obviously immovable in your oppinions. And again, please explain WHY you bring up WP:WEASEL. Did I use any weasel words? If I did it wouldn't hurt to actually point them out. I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. While the essay is written to serve a different purpose, the statements there might be helpful in constructing an argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or perhaps are not quite sure how to do so effectively.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, heavy apologies for the typo and welcome to the internets. Your WEASELwords: "I wouldn't go so far as to say", "I would say its a sign of". In this whole discussion I would not say this: "I am sure you that you are not as dumb as you might appear to some.", only as a made-up example (double-WEASEL). And now back to the topic! Misou 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, weasel words apply to words made in attempt to assert fact. "I would say" and "I wouldn't go so far as to say" are statements indicating OPINION. This is not an article namespace, we are allowed to make inferences and draw conclusions. Its a part of discussion, something you might want to read up on a little bit before you continue to take aim (however innacurately) at others for how they engage in it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, it is inappropriate for one POV-warrior (just a quick review of his edits in Scientology shows numerous reversions to reinsert critical material in a prominent position, over the objections of multiple editors, in an article that is not primarily about the controversial church, not to mention a stab at OR) to bring someone with an opposing POV here. COFS has a POV as do we all. I am familiar with COFS' edits and they are not whitewashing. They look like well-considered edits and any dispute that SheffieldSteel with them falls under the category of content disputes and SheffieldSteel should be using standard WP:DR such as WP:3O and WP:RfC (on the edit, not the editor). Nor is COFS a sockpuppet or meatpuppet and such was not proven and the opposite was indicated in the checkuser case when all was said and done. COFS is, as far as I know, a Scientology staff member and shares a proxy IP with many other such around the world. Again, let SheffieldSteel pursue standard WP:DR instead of trying to kneecap his perceived opponent. --Justanother 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If COFS is a Scientology staff member, then they should not be editing any Scientology articles, period. Allowing this person to edit these controversial articles only serves to inflame the disputes. WP:COI is simple and easy enough to follow. When other editors object, the COI editor should withdraw. I have no connection to Scientology, neither pro nor con, yet I definitely feel like there's a conflict here. Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would as well say that off-wiki critics of Scientology (those that picket Scientology churches and/or maintain or heavily contribute to anti-Scientology websites, etc.) should equally not inflame the discussion by editing in those pages. In either case, the proper thing to do is address the possible COI issue on a COI board and/or by means of a proper User RfC; this board is, IMO, not the proper place for this issue. --Justanother 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are here because past warnings and WP:COIN discussions have failed to resolve an ongoing problem. Yes, I also have a problem with anti-Scientology litigants editing the Scientology article. The best thing would be to let people who can maintain NPOV work on the article. That said, we have to peel the onion one layer at a time, and COFS is one of the most obvious COI problems. Perhaps COFS can be convinced to work via the talk pages only, and leave the article editing to others. Obviously a solution by agreement is much better than one imposed externally. Otherwise, a topic ban would be a very appropriate solution. Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not disagree that COFS has to be cognizant of COI issues (and have mentioned that on previous occasions), I do not think that past warnings by neutral admin(s) for COI violations or WP:COIN discussions have taken place at all. Can you back up that statement? --Justanother 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the latest "no discussion" at "Scientology again" I am looking for the earlier one(s). Please point me at them if you know where they are. Thanks --Justanother 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) The COI in this situation is pretty much a slam dunk (changing metaphors again, sorry). If I spot an IBM employee editing IBM they are going to get a warning, then they will get blocked if they persist. Without citing diffs, because it's late, and I am not really trying to get COFS blocked or banned, I have seen numerous instances where COFS has been alerted to the issue of COI. If COFS hasn't read WP:COI, that's just plain reckless. The information is there. COFS really can't be editing Scientology. If this is your friend, please ask them to stop. Once you do that, you'll be in a better position to call out any anti-Scientology warriors who seek to push their POV in the articles. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, all due respect (and an edit conflict) but I think you may be a bit too involved here yourself. On the first discussion (here) you left inappropriate multiple "warnings" and on the second discussion (here), a full month later, you are all about how "these people have worn out our patience"; "these people"? "our patience"? And you urge Sheffield to bypass the COI discussion and come over here for a ban? What say we slow down a bit here? Take it back to WP:COIN and try to hammer out an agreeement with COFS as to what he can and cannot do. Or perhaps an RfC would be better? But not this board. --Justanother 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, folks. We're not dealing with a newbie who is naively violating COI or other norms of Wikipedia. This is a confirmed sockpuppeteer who has accrued an impressive block log in the four months they have been here. Either we take our norms of behavior seriously and react accordingly, or we admit that we don't really mean them, in which case we should blank the pages for WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:TE et al. and be done with it. Iamnotmyself 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) No, there is no evidence of sock-puppetry (or meat-puppetry for that matter). Please review the particulars of the case. It is unfair to try to cast a good-faith editor as something s/he is not. --Justanother 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the "impressive block log" boils down to two blocks for 3RR; the ChrisO block was bogus (COFS removing links as per an RfC and the links were eventually all removed) and the coelacan blocks were basically one block for something COFS has no control over - what proxy server s/he uses and the fact that that IP address is shared with other Scientologists around the world. --Justanother 11:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-dent) I'd just like to add a couple of comments. It's rather surprising to be accused of being known as a biased editor on the issue of Scientology, although I have always considered Misou and Justanother to hold pro-Scientology views, so perhaps I should not be surprised. Perhaps this sounds like a violation of WP:KETTLE, given my alleged anti-Scientology bias, but for the record I have no great beef with Scientology, no conflict of interest, and no particular bias - other than a desire to see wikipedia succeed as a neutral and reliable source of information for others. The only thing on wikipedia that could really offend my religious beliefs would be deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. SheffieldSteel 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add: please would all editors review this edit of mine cited above by Justanother as an example of "OR by a POV-warrior". I don't understand how a neutral observer could construe this edit as OR or POV-pushing. What it does do is cite an independent source that apparently contradicts a statement attributed to L Ron Hubbard in the article, while stopping short of calling him a liar - which would be synthesis, not OR or POV-pushing. But let's not get distracted by Attack the attacker tactics - the question here is not my conduct, but that of COFS. SheffieldSteel 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users that try to bypass WP:DR and get an editor whose viewpoint might oppose their own banned deserved some degree of attack. Please knock it off and utilize the standard WP:DR remedies over your content dispute. Thanks. --Justanother 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it's best if we leave this space for neutral (i.e. uninvolved) editors to discuss the matter. SheffieldSteel 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meet those criteria. But I have said my piece. --Justanother 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're neutral and uninvolved? You can't be serious - you said you have "30 years of Scientology"[7] and your contributions record shows you're a long-term partisan (on the pro-Scientology side, but the same would principle apply if you were anti). Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Iamnotmyself 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Good Day, I saw that this discussion has evolved quite a bit in my absence and it could be that I have not found all of the discussions SheffieldSteel has started on 4 or more Admin boards so please be patient if I am saying something somebody else has said already elsewhere. I was looking who is an Admin here and is looking at things from a broader perspective. Let's see who we got here.... It's not Iamnotmyself (a sockpuppet), not User "still not an admin" Jehochman (a reputable editor on technical issues, but somewhat hostile to Scientologists, see my talk page), not Justanother, a mediator, not Misou, a bear, not ... ah, here:

Has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, and it does not look like this is wanted. COI-issues seem to be quite a problem as everyone has a viewpoint on something and on the issue at hand mine seems to be different than the one of SheffieldSteel and some others (whose contributions to the Scientology-related articles boil down to "revert, revert, revert") who seem to be more or less connected to groups actively "fighting" or discriminating Scientologists off-wiki. I do not want to bring off-wiki information in here and I won't. But this is the main issue here. How do you know who someone is working for or if a certain viewpoint has not been paid for? I am not being paid or receive any advantages for editing here. My concern is that false and biased information should have no place in Wikipedia and if this puts me against agenda-pushers, well, that is not surprising then but just shows how necessary it is to scrutinize each contribution. May be I should not be open about that or maybe I should never have said on my user page that I am a Scientologist? Maybe I should not edit via a Church proxy? Wikipedia can be abused as a fertile ground for hidden agendas - anonymous IDs, anonymous internet accesses, the possibility to lie about almost everything undetected - so I congratulate those who have the guts to say where they come from and what they want here. I am happy to be notified about anything I might miss in this context. But months of experience tell me that blunt falsehoods can go by for months and years in the Scientology articles because either they are not detected for lack of competent editors or deliberately left in there by the usual crew of Scientology-editors, none of which can be said to be neutral on the issue. Which is a problem that brought me here in the first place. If you know something is a lie, you would go and correct it. If you have access to more data on a subject than a lot of other people you would go and share it on a project like Wikipedia. This is what I am doing. COFS 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's painting with too broad a brush: in over 15,000 edits on this site I don't believe I've ever edited a Scientology article or voiced a view about the subject or had a hand in any Scientology-related conflict. I'm also an administrator with 18 barnstars who's been involved in 14 arbitration cases, sometimes as a named party, yet no sanction has ever even been proposed against me - so to reply to the question about casting the first stone I'll toss: 3 month community topic ban with a referral to dispute resolution. I think COFS's record justifies that much and, on the whole, it's milder than the usual destination for this sort of editorial trajectory. Strongly recommend DR also to COFS's supporters. When dealing with controversial topics generally it's a sign of trouble to see partisan people accuse neutral editors of bias. Please step back, regard this as a preventative measure aimed at defusing a tense situation before more serious sanctions become necessary, and heed the cautions regarding WP:COI. I'm equally interested in demonstrable COI evidence regarding either side of the related disputes. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova^Charge!, I mention you above as the only one who actually brought up a creative suggestion and yet you seem to feel attacked. That was not my intent. Anyway, this is gets in a discrimination issue unless actual charges are being brought up and until we sort out who is pushing what with what agenda. I am willing to participate in such sortout if everyone involved is actually willing to put the cards on the table and answer up. That includes all anti-editors like this. COFS 02:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, your previous post simply painted with too broad a brush. I'm pretty confident about several other editors' neutrality and I'm absolutely certain of my own. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll modify that with this proposed compromise: if COFS joins WP:ADOPT we can shorten the community topic ban to one month. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think (that is "In my opinion, as a conclusion I have drawn from consideration of evidence" for those of who are concerned over my using weasel words), its going a little light but if COFS is willing to follow the terms of the CTB it would indicate a good first step. After all the goal of this process isn't to punish anyone, just prevent problems. Of course under ideal circumstances, anyone who is a member of an organization, as well as anyone vocally opposed to it, would abstain from editing it save certain exceptions (i.e. the correction of minor details like dates and names), much in the manner that subjects of biographical pages should.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's better for people who have a COI to post suggested changes with line citations to talk pages rather than to articles. The purpose of this thread, however, is to discuss what to do about a particular problem editor. Durova^Charge! 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am just stating that ideally, we wouldn't have to do this, and that I do support your 3(conditionally 1) month community topic ban if it counts for anything.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-I am very concerned by what I'm reading here.

Scientology is more than a place of employment, it is a religion. If we make the claim that COFS is a staff member for CoS and therefore has a COI, shouldn't we also say that every Scientology member has a COI? In fact, I would submit, that the religious aspect would carry much more COI weight than an employment aspect. My church (not Scientology) employs people who are not members of our church. I would certainly expect more support on an issue from my fellow church members, than the church janitor or secretary. If we community ban COFS from Scientology, I think we also need to also ban every Scientologist from editing Scientology articles.
There are several editors in the Scientology articles who have their own off-wiki websites, which they use to publish anti-COS information. Wouldn't that mean they also have COI? Should we community ban them also?

If we are going to take a bite of this apple, lets be prepared to eat the whole damned thing.

This is not a simple COI case where some random company is paying an employee to write a promo piece on their business. This is a series of articles which are highly polarized. There are two very distinct and separate camps that edit these articles; pro-CoS and anti-CoS. Only a few (very few) editors fall in the NPOV neutral middle.

Placing a community ban on one side of the two distinct groups, without equally banning the opposite side will tend to tip the balance in favor of the anti-CoS group and set a very bad precident. Are we really prepared to do that?

I believe that in extremely polarized articles, especially on religion, attempting to micro manage by trying to determine and define COI takes more than a quickie discussion on a board with uninvolved admins. And then, by placing community bans on editors from only one side, we are upsetting the balance of the article and are doing more harm than we are good. There are more than enough anti-CoS editors to mitigate any damage that COFS can do (if we can even agree to call it damage, which I'm not sure that we can).

Should we ban anyone from edting Veganism if they work for a grocery store, or a farm? Should we ban them if they are a practicing Vegan? Should we ban them if they work for, or support, any animal rights groups? Where would we stop?

As much as we would all like this to be a simple clear-cut COI decision, this is more of a case of the anti-CoS group tossing wet leaves on some coals, making smoke and yelling fire. I've seen COFS's edits. They are not the edits of a paid COI editor, who is on a professional mission to publish POV material to promote Scientology.

And all that aside, on a personal note.. what the hell happened to due process? We have anti-COS editors who opened this discussion. We have uninvolved editors making a decision. When does COFS get representation? Shouldn't this be a much more formal process and a very thorough investigation? If we are going to community ban COFS, I have some names to submit from the anti-cult and anti-CoS group who are as blatantly pov pushing as any Pro-CoS editor that I've ever seen.

Personally, I have no love for Scientology, then again I have no hate for it either. I don't really even know what it is. But I do recognize railroading when I see it, and this train is at full speed.

In my opinion, this entire line of discussion, while interesting, should not be here.. certainly not yet. Lsi john 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we make the claim that COFS is a staff member for CoS and therefore has a COI, shouldn't we also say that every Scientology member has a COI? The key phrase you glossed right over is "staff member" -- i.e.; "employee". So, no. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sir. I glossed over nothing. I clearly stated two things of significantly more importance:

Religious persuasion carries infinitely more weight in this discussion than mere employment.
This is not an article about some insignificant little company where a single COI editor would stand a chance of having any significant influence. There are two very large and very polarized groups at work here. Assuming staff-member means employed, mere employment is trivial when compared against the emotional hate that comes from the Anti-COS group and the emotional support that comes from the Scientologists.

And that is exactly why I believe that this discussion is in the wrong forum. It looks like it is a simple cut-and-dried open-and-closed case of COI and it isn't. It seems like an opportunity for well meaning uninvolved admins to make a difference and give them an opportunity to do the right thing. In reality, it is pov editors on the anti-CoS side, trying to remove some of their opposition. I can see it, because I edit there and know the players. I happened across the articles due to an encounter with another editor, who happens to edit the same articles I was in, as well as the Scientology articles. I'm familar with the players. Are you? What does it mean to be a staff member? Is COFS paid? Is COFS a volunteer staff member? Do we know? Have we investigated? Do we care? Are we simply assuming COI? Has anyone who is considering a block, actually read through the edits of COFS and compared them to similar edits by Anti-COS editors? Even if COI exists, its one thing to have COI, it's another thing to introduce COI into an article. Is there any evidence that COFS is editing with any more undue prejudice than anti-COS editors who run their anti-COS websites? Placing a community ban is not something to be done lightly. And this is certainly not the clear cut case that some would have us belive. Lsi john 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really very simple. Y, an employee of X, edits an article about X and gets into disputes with other editors. I don't care what X is, and I don't care about the personal beliefs of Y. I care that X has an employee editing an article about X. At minimum, this looks bad and damages the reputation of Wikipedia if we allow the apparent COI to continue. If Y has been counselled repeatedly about this problem, yet chooses to continue making such edits, That's when Y gets banned. I've tried to counselling within this very same thread, and the response from the pro-Scientology camp has been that I must be an anti-Scientologist because I oppose them. Wrong. I am opposing your conduct on Wikipedia, not your beliefs in real life. Counselling hasn't worked, so let's try Durova's suggestion instead. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I wish life were that simple. Counselling hasn't worked? It hasn't? What counseling? What hasn't worked? Have you even done any edit counting on those articles to see how infrequently COFS is actually editing? I've never suggested anyone here is Anti-Scientologist. I think the admins here want to do the right thing, and they are being happily led down the path of COI.

if we allow the apparent COI to continue? So now we community ban even if its only 'aparent COI' even if it is not true coi?

Yes COI is important. And if COFS had any chance of really having any significant impact as a COI editor simply by being a staff member, I'd sign on board with you. How much time have you spent editing those articles or monitoring the discussions? Lsi john 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common view is that writing an article about one's employer is the canonical example of COI, the standard against which all other potential COIs are measured. The National Academy of Sciences, which lives and dies by their reputation for objective evaluation of evidence, says for example: "An individual should not serve as a member of a committee with respect to an activity in which a critical review and evaluation of the individual's own work, or that of his or her immediate employer, is the central purpose of the activity, because that would constitute a conflict of interest, although such an individual may provide relevant information to the program activity."[8] Following that analogy, an employee of X certainly is welcome to "provide relevant information" by posting suggestions on an article's Talk page, but there's no way they should edit the article itself. We can argue whether "emotional attachment", etc. also constitutes a COI, but to argue that writing about one's employer does not constitute COI is prima facie absurd. Iamnotmyself 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamnotmyself, then shouldn't we also consider all Scientologists as having a conflict of interest? Jihads are committed based solely on religious beliefs, yet I have not seen any McDonalds resturant's blown up by Pizza Hut employees. This is a subject of Religion. You're so focused on the trees you're missing the entire forest. This subject is bigger than some technical definition of COI. Which, by the way, I'm not convinced that we have actually established applies here. I certainly haven't seen any pay-stubs which prove employment. I'm not suggesting COFS isn't employed, I'm asking if we are about to ban without proof. Lsi john 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if we want to discuss a short-term block on COFS for edit summaries or 3RR, then I'm with you. Personally, I think COFS does more of a disservice to Scientology than a credit. But that doesn't mean I support fast-tracking a community ban on someone in order to remove the competition. Lsi john 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want COFS to agree to stop editing the articles that represent a COI. If COFS would agree (and abide), there'd be no need for blocks! I spent a couple hours last night on IRC with another admin talking about blocks. The great insight was the blocks should be avoided whenever possible. As for other editors who may suffer from COI or POV pushing tendencies, the community will deal with them in turn. Refraining from editing the articles doesn't mean absolute silence. The article talk pages and noticeboards would still be available if COFS seems a problem and wants to call for help. Jehochman ^Talk 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That logic gets you those editing article who have less knowledge about the subject they are editing about than the ones you are trying to boot. Asking a butcher for vegetarian recipes, so to say, will get you a list of ugly tasting meals. As I said above, let's get all cards on the table. I am polarizing because I am the only pro-editor facing a bunch of people with their own agenda. True, it is sometimes hard to see who actually has a neutral or relatively neutral viewpoint. But realize that you are automatically taking sides if no thorough investigation is preceeding your comments. I understand it might be a lot of work to cut through the noise. I think it is worth a try. COFS 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still fail to see that your logic is self destructive. Polarizing to deal with an opposite simply drives things apart further. Maybe if you take a break and see how things work out without your constant objections to everything under the sun you might come to understand this.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what is happening but you are saying essentially that I should take small steps and do nothing when incorrect information is being put in articles on subjects I know. Where is WP:RS/WP:ATTRIB, WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc in all this? One information alone, which I stupidly put on my user page, that I am a Scientologist, was polarizing and got me - in Feb 07 - in the line of attack. Ok, my reaction that time was not civil and not by the rules but I learned in between. Then the fact that I am using a proxy run by the Church (a very convenient way to get online from everywhere in the world and nothing else) was used broadly to get me blocked for something I did not do, i.e. sockpuppeting. Now we got not even a COI discussion and another angle for getting me booted including some wild guesses on what Wikipedia policy could be without naming one of them. Durova once wrote an article which I liked - even though I think that Durova is not applying wikisleuthing at all. You find it here. Let's put the cards on the table. Who is doing what with that agenda here. You'd be surprised. COFS 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I did take a time out (check my activity record) and do so regularly. I got an offline job and that is time consuming, as most of us know. This time is usually the time for some guys who just heard from a friends friend how dangerous Scientology might be to put in some badly sourced slant in the article. Which no one will remove. This happened for years with no Scientologists really caring about this encyclopedia and to the result that there are now hundreds of falsehoods, unsourced slants etc spread in over 270 articles about the subject. COFS 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS, can you confirm that you don't work for the CoS? Are we confused? Simply being a scientologist isn't a COI. I wish the pros- and the cons- could agree to respect each other's sourced statements, even when they look like bollocks. Our readers are smart enough to evaluate the sources and see which statements are true and false. Wikipedia isn't here to present The Truth. No, we just show the arguments on all sides and let the reader decide what to believe. I think we all could work together to improve these articles and maybe get Scientology up to featured article. Wouldn't that be nice? Is anyone here opposed to writing a great article? Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I agree. I have two things to cite here, and then I'll stop posting (highlighting mine for emphasis):

WP:COI "This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

WP:IAR "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was our first rule to consider.
If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."

COFS is not harming the project, but rather is providing stimuli to enhance the articles.

Lets go edit articles and not try to micromanage the Scientology debate from our couch. Peace in God. Lsi john 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Jehochman, I am surely not opposed to writing great articles. This discussion was running for 2-3 days without me being present. During this time lots of things have been said on various boards and I am not sure how I am being "conceived" here. As I said before I am not an employee of the Church (and have not been one in the past and currently do not plan to become one) and I get no money for this or any other advantages. I think this is the third time I write that. Looks like I have to work on my writing style so someone actually reads me... COFS 03:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Addressing several posts over the past several hours:

If there's a case to be made for COI or disruptive editing against some other editor on Scientology-related topics, any non-blocked editor is welcome to raise that separately. And if anyone wishes to redefine this site's definition of conflict of interest, the place to seek community consensus for that is over at that guideline and its talk page.

As I understand it, COFS is an employee of an organization who edits disruptively about that organization (or at the very least, someone who has regular access to that organization's computers). COFS also has five confirmed sockpuppets and a substantial block history. That's enough to merit serious discussion at this board.

I've offered what I consider to be a very reasonable and mild solution; COFS hasn't replied to the offer of a one month topic ban conditional upon WP:ADOPT entry. And given what I've observed - particularly at this very thread - this editor fits a pattern that typically ends with much more serious sanctions. The ball's in your court. If you refuse to volley we can serve a 3 month topic ban, and if consensus doesn't form for that I can still use my sysop tools as needed. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As I understand it . . ." Durova, perhaps therein lies the problem.
1. "who edits disruptively": No, that point is not decided and neither the block history nor the (non-existant) WP:DR remedies support that claim. The only one complaining (about the edits, not about the general issue of COI) is someone that does not like COFS' edits. WP:DR is thataway.
2. "has five confirmed sockpuppets": No, has zero socks, simply a case of multiple users on one IP.
3. "a substantial block history" No again and I have already addressed that. Two blocks for 3RR are the only blocks relevant to anything in COFS' block history.
So I think, with all due respect, Durova, that you are a bit confused as to whom you are dealing with here. So instead of pushing for bans and threatening to override any outcome of this case that you don't agree with, hows about we send this back to WP:COIN and have a discussion there and, if COFS does not like the outcome of that discussion then s/he can open a User RfC on the issue or try ArbCom. So where is the ball now? It should never have been in this court in the first place so lets go play the game where it should be played and lets you please not threaten to close the court and send everyone home. Of course you can always use your admin tools; that goes without saying. But there is little, if any, activity on COFS' part that would warrant such use. If your only objection is the COI issue, then (again) let's walk back over to that court and play over there. --Justanother 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping in the conversation so late. I really don't know the details but I really like the changes COFS have done. So what is the problem? Bravehartbear 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova^Charge!, you sound as though you aren't 100% sure of COFS status as an employee of the CoS. I was involved with the WP:RFCU which revealed that COFS, Misou, and some others are using a shared IP address which is utilized by the CoS organization. Justanother told me that the CoS doesn't provide general Internet access for it's members. It was then assumed the users must then be accessing Wikipedia "at work". Essentially we don't know for sure what the actual situation is outside of the basic fact that several User accounts are editing Wikipedia from the same IP and with the same bias. Anynobody 06:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you assumed that COFS was a paid employee without considering any possible other explanations, like volunteer staff member, or other possibility. And, your assumption makes sense, given your alignment. Lsi john 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per WP:SOCK I treat these accounts as the same person: they edit the same topics toward the same POV. So for administrative purposes they're essentially indistinguishable: if they aren't actually the same person they're meatpuppets so the policy applies equally in either scenario. Although I could consider the possibility that this person is a dedicated CoS volunteer rather than a paid employee, the difference isn't significant to my analysis. Durova^Charge! 06:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I don't know you, but it sure seems to me that you are looking for a reason to block, rather than a reason not to block. If you can't block for COI, you'll block for sock puppet. If you cant block for sock puppet, you'll block for meat puppet. If you are now going to redefine community ban to include meatpuppets who edit with a common purpose, then you need to include at least 4 more editors on the anti-COS side, all of whom claim to edit with the same veracity as COFS, and all of whom are equally tenacious.

At the top of this board it says: This is not the place to come to if you think someone is causing a problem and should be blocked. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) for that. Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, not a means to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first.

Did I miss an RfC or Medcab? As I understand it, this got posted here because Jehochman wanted it here. And now we have the cart before the horse and we're out to lynch someone. Lsi john 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the melodramatic hangman's noose. It could be viewed as a threat. I suggest it be removed from this page. The person who posted it should take a break for a short time to think about ways to interact with other editors more appropriately. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things could be viewed as a threat. Do you view it as a threat? I seriously doubt you do. I suspect that it's more likely that you resent having your actions so explicitly defined. To consider it a threat is absurd, given the post that was associated with it. It is symbolic of the lynching that is taking place here, and I clearly stated that in my response. However, in a Good-Faith response to your objection, I have removed the picture. You will now have to find your own rope. Lsi john 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS -- For my work I sure could use a proxy with a fixed IP address. Will CoS provide this service for me? Somehow, I think they don't provide this service for anyone coming in off the street.

Even if you aren't an employee, COFS, the fact that they let you use their computer systems sure looks like you are an agent of this organization and that they approve of and guide, your activities. Whether you are employee, agent, or volunteer, your connection is very close. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about me? I do my edits from home or MacDill Air Force Base in FL. So are you going to block a military server too? My opinion is similar to those of COFS. So? What exactly you guys want? What is wrong with COFS edits?Bravehartbear 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (redux) - I do not want to say much here as I think that this is a ludicrous place to be discussing COFS. We should take this talk back over to WP:COIN. I just have two points really:
1. The one and only issue here is to decide if COFS has a conflict-of-interest and what is the exact conflict-of-interest (if any). That discussion would best take place at WP:COIN, or by User RfC. Not here.
2. Regarding my previous comments about SheffieldSteel, perhaps I went too far in calling him a POV-warrior. Perhaps. Again, I do see that the bulk of his edits in the Scientology article consist of minor copyediting and major reversions of the edits of a number of editors that seem to be sympathetic to Scientology. I do not see that reversion behavior as the actions of a neutral editor. I added to that his action is opening this case to come up with my characterization but I see that he may have simply been acting on some bad advice from Jehochman in opening this.
I propose that this action be closed as there is no evidence of sufficient prior WP:DR to justify draconian measures like community bans. Close this and take up the discussion at WP:COIN and COFS may want to consider opening a User RfC on him/herself so that this issue can be settled once and for all. --Justanother 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify my central point: I am not seeking a reason to block anyone. What I am saying is that I've seen this type of situation before (no. 135) and COFS is on a trajectory that usually ends badly. The type of help and support he or she is receiving, although it appears to be heartfelt, is not serving this editor's long term interests. In more than a few ways this is like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal where I cautioned very early - before arbitration began - that an editor needed to change course. I offered some reasonable ways to change course, but she refused. Now she's sitebanned by both the community and the arbitration committee. Consider the advantages of my offer: a formal mentor will be a source of unbiased advice, COFS will remain free to participate in dispute resolution and to report any policy violations by opposing editors, and if another side of this topic dispute abuses the situation to try to own one or more articles those articles can be page protected. It doesn't matter to me whether the topic at hand is Scientology, Seventh Day Adventism, alternative medicine, or Australian professional wrestling - when a certain type of human dynamic takes over things play out in predictable ways. I'm here to redirect and defuse the problem if that's possible. Durova^Charge! 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, perhaps COFS does not fit into your pigeonhole? I responded more to what I perceive as your error in classification above. Listen, if you can help COFS then great. And if COFS would like a mentor then equally great. COFS is a reasonable and intelligent person (I think that you yourself can perceive that from his posts here), we do not have to hit him over the head with a ~~block~~ ~~ban~~ brick. --Justanother 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the pro-Scientology faction isn't interested in working with other editors. They feel that if they cause enough procedural wrangling, and if they bring in enough sympathetic friends to stack the debate, they can obstruct our efforts to create a neutral encyclopedia. We really cannot ignore WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:DE and WP:SOCK. I feel like the community has given these editors every possible chance to work cooperatively, but we aren't getting a constructive response. What shall we do? Follow Durova's good advice, or head down the tired old path she describes... Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording seems to be a bit weasely. For clarity, would you be kind enough to point out the pro-scientologists here? From what little I understand of it, Scientology and Christianity are mutually exclusive (though I could be wrong). If that is the case, it would make me an anti-scientologist by definition. As an editor, I am NPOV on the issue. I haven't had any difficulty working with the Scientologists. I wonder why you feel the way you do. Shall we assume from your comments that you are an anti-scientologist? I had not drawn that conclusion, but perhaps I should have. Lsi john 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I missed part of what you said:

" I feel like the community has given these editors every possible chance to work cooperatively, but we aren't getting a constructive response."

I thought this was a conversation about COFS and COI? It's been said give em enough rope and they hang themselves.. Clearly this is not about COFS for you, it is about removing pro-Scientologists from the project. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Perhaps now we can close this discussion? Lsi john 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is about COFS, the second party under the term "these editors" most likely refers to Misou, who has been following a similar path. I cannot speak for anyone else but I myself am 100% neutral on this issue. I have no real interest in religion on any level. I don't practice any religion, not because I'm athiest or agnostic, but because I don't really care one way or the other. COFS' problem not only stems from COI but from either refusal or inability to adopt a more neutral editing stance with regard to this issue. If the topic's control swings to any anti-scientology editors, this same procedure, or that of protection, can be instituted. FYI, very few religions are mutually exclusive. That's generally up to the churches of the religions, and the rules that they establish, but parts of various religions are generally compatible. Perhaps you believe in thetans, out of body experiences, and Xenu, you don't have to adopt the notion of there being no god, and you could probably still believe in heaven as an afterlife without ruling out all parts of scientology views. I'd say 1 month CTB under a mentor is MORE than fair. COFS will still be able to edit all non-related articles in wikipedia, and will still be able to call attention to any biased information being introduced into scientology related articles to any one of a myriad of editors neutral to this topic who I'm sure would be glad to help.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oni Ookami Alfador, did you miss this reply:

":(ec) Jehochman, I am surely not opposed to writing great articles. This discussion was running for 2-3 days without me being present. During this time lots of things have been said on various boards and I am not sure how I am being "conceived" here. As I said before I am not an employee of the Church (and have not been one in the past and currently do not plan to become one) and I get no money for this or any other advantages. I think this is the third time I write that. Looks like I have to work on my writing style so someone actually reads me... COFS 03:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)"

If this is about COI, and COI is defined as 'employed by', and COFS claims to not be 'employed by', then the matter seems to be settled. Any further action would effectively be banning an individual for having a POV about an issue, and as I pointed out above, we will need to ban a lot more editors than COFS. Lsi john 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your definitions. COI is not defined by or as employment. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Examples. It lists financial, personal, legal, and several other possible sources of COI. All you are trying to do at this point is use (incorrect) semantics to argue in defense of someone who has not just shown POV and COI on a topic, but a consistent will to enforce those views at the detriment to the quality and neutrality of the articles in question. Next time try to base an argument on a definition, it would serve your interest to make sure you actually know and understand it first.

Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image. -Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

And again, just to reiterate... Conflict of interest is not exclusive to employment.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oni Ookami Alfador, thank you. I happen to agree that COI is not necessarily limited to paid employment. However, that has been one of the main allegations of this (and previous) discussion(s). I would be curious to learn, how broad a COI-net you would cast in the Scientology articles. I can see how we would include all Scientologists, as they clearly have a vested interest in their own religion. Would you include former Scientologists in the community ban as well? Also, I believe that one editor in particular (not named because it isn't significant at this point) runs a personal anti-COS website. Would that qualify as a conflict of interest and qualify for a community ban? If an editor makes a comment like "Scientoloty is a cult", would that indicate a conflict of interest for writing neutral articles?

For clarity refer to my section heading (above) If we are going to take a bite of this apple, lets be prepared to eat the whole damned thing. COI is not a policy, it is a guideline. If we start micro-managing these articles by community banning individual editors, simply because they have a related 'interest' in the articles, we better be prepared to jump in and solve the whole problem. I have no desire to represent either 'side' here. If you remove one faction, are you prepared to step in and prevent the other faction from completely obfuscating the article with bias? I still maintain that there are a sufficient quantity of editors on both sides to prevent any single editor from getting away with inserting any lasting POV due to COI. Lsi john 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone interprets WP:COI to mean that Scientologists should be banned from editing Scientology articles. But editing is not edit-warring. While COI in itself does not justify a ban, user conduct may; therefore WP:COI asks editors to exercise caution. SheffieldSteel 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with SheffieldSteel. As I have already said more than once, the COI problem is not as much COFS' association with scientology as it is the fact that whatever that association may be, it is clearly causing a lack of discipline in her edit process. It is not the presence of COI that concerns me, it is COI actions that concern me. COI simply indicates a potential for an editors interests to be in conflict with those of Wikipedia. The problem comes when someone does (as COFS has) make edits towards those interests. COFS has demonstrated, again as I've said before, either an inability or unwillingness to put her own vested interests in the topic aside towards the neutrality of the articles, a core pillar of Wikipedia. As for your comment about sufficent editors on "both sides" Lsi john, the goal here is to get editors to work with eachother and discuss, not simply "cancel eachother out." That has a name, and its called edit warring. The only thing it leads to is articles that contradict themselves and that constantly display one bias or another depending on when you happened to call it up. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality? I have been complaining for a long time that there no neutrality in the Scientology pages. They are full of unproven accusation and allegations. "Some people say this", "some people say that", saunds more like John Sweeney propaganda than facts: http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/watch-the-video-documentary.php Lets just stick to the facts and strike those unproven allegations out of Wikipedia. Bravehartbear 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have posted examples of the problems they're concerned about. Would you care to do that instead of just drawing culteral parallels that don't reinforce the claims?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@, WP:COI is not policy and I disagree with your extrapolation of it. It does not make sense to say that WP:COI is valid for "personal" reasons. That just means that you should not edit about anything you are truly interested in. I googled today aboout conflict of interest and found a great quote which summarizes it pretty well: "Wikipedia's guidelines say that people shouldn't have a conflict of interest and that you should write about things that you have no connection with. I think that is a naive view. Most of the people who write in Wikipedia are tending to write about things that matter to them.". Don't you?

To add to that, so far noone has been able to actually give Diffs, WP:POLICY on the matter or even check my contribs while pretty much ignoring WP:NPAs like the new series of provocations coming up once more from the usual people ("Racist, Bigot", "flaunting bigotry","bigoted","brainwashed","cult vandalism","vandalism" and so on). I can stand rough words and knowing his/her edits I am sure Misou as well. However those provocateurs never get put on a stake like me here and as long as this is the case, I doubt that proper research/wikisleuthing is being done by the responsible Admins. It seems that we get lost in a cloud of soap bubbles instead of creating an encyclopedia which looks great next to others. For my part, I just agreed to stay off the Scientology articles for a bit, just to be able to edit here, i.e. I had to get unblocked, because a random sweeping Admin found some of the noise created around me and thought it a good idea to block me before I even could say beep in here today. No research.

Let's watch Scientology and Church of Scientology (which are the two I tried to get the bias out) for a little. I don't have a problem stepping back a bit but I will take note on the old bias and new one being introduced and I will argue to get it out again.

On the plan to boot Scientologists but not the hate-campaigners from the Scientology-articles, well, if this needs to go to ArbCom or JW for testing against WP antidiscrimination policy, we should do it. I'd prefer a less dramatic way, i.e. the talk page, and AN/I if needed. For me this discussion is closed unless some facts are being dealt with. COFS 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the plan. The plan is to stop the COI and POV editing on both sides, preferably by convincing people to exercise self-control, but if that fails, we can use stronger remedies. Finally, we will try to get the remaining editors to work together to produce a good or featured article.

Who here supports COI editing? Does anyone think this article should be all positive or all negative? Does anyone think edit warring is good? Does anyone want to produce a bad article? Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh COI diffs

Here are two fresh COI edits involving the removal of sourced material and edit warring. COFS, if you have a problem with another editor, take it to the talk page. Don't revert sourced material. If you feel that an editor is edit warring, file a report at WP:3RR. Your not helping your own cause to make edits like these while this discussion is ongoing. [9] [10] Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that none of those are after COFS' recent block/unblock episode. One is 15 hours old and the other is 25 hours old. Carry on. --Justanother 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, two reverts, 10 hours apart in the past 25 hours, hardly constitutes edit warring. Shame on you for posting evidence of not-warring and suggest that it implies warring. Lsi john 20:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that does constitute edit warring. From WP:3RR:

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

And to clarify this discussion from a policy standpoint, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground both apply here. So do WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. My advice to the pro-scientology editors at this thread is to take a hard look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate and compare it to my essay User:Durova/The dark side.

This situation has the characteristics of a problem that could head into arbitration and I speak from enough experience to be pretty good at predicting that outcome. I'm also aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo, having interacted with Terryeo while I was coauthoring Wikipedia's disruptive editing guideline. My advice to pro-Scientology editors at this thread is to weigh the potential for losing one of the editors you value for much longer than one month through community action, as well as the potential public relations effect of a second arbitration case. A hard line approach isn't likely to serve your own interests for very long. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Durova, but I do not much agree with your concept that you are crystal-balling where COFS will go and you are going to forestall it and "help" her with a one-month ban. Sounds like Minority Report to me. Long story short, COFS is a grownup and if s/he wants to play with fire then let him and if he gets burned then so be it. This is COFS' call. S/he can ask for a mentor, ask you to recommend one, do an RfC on herself, or handle this in any number of ways. The one thing I think we agree on is that something needs to be sorted out and if s/he does not sort something out then s/he may well be on that well-oiled path you envision. But for now, let's put our oilcans down, please, and let her take it from here. There is NOT any history of progressive discipline to warrant any sort of block/ban. --Justanother 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that arbitration might be inevitable. Even the most neutral non-Scientology sources express a more critical view of it than Scientologists feel is appropriate. As a result they feel as though the CoS is being slandered and libelled by the media. They offer church writings or Hubbard's claims as the truth, but their information doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS or WP:V much of the time in order to act as proof. To them it probably seems like Wikipedia isn't interested in "hearing their side". This set of circumstances invites Scientologists who care about what we say here (on Wikipedia) to edit war. I honestly don't care about Scientology as a religion/cult/whatever but I am interested in how the concept of WP:COI applies to situations like this. Ideally I should be able to apply the principles of whatever solution we come up with as a baseline for future incidents in any COI/religion issue. Anynobody 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No judgment going on in that statment.

Just for clarity, you're the same Anynobody that tracked Justanother's history for 3 months in a bad-faith anticipation of an RfC, right?
And you're the Anynobody who went to AN/I after Justanother asked for it to be deleted, and made sure to mention him when you innocently asked if it was really improper to keep such a bad-faith log for 3 months, right?
And you're the Anynobody who opened the original Checkuser on COFS, right?
And you're the Anynobody who refused to agree to stay away from AN/I posting when Bishonen personally asked each of us, right?
And now you're, again, predicting doom and failure on the part of COFS, by denograting all Scientologists in one fell swoop for their inability to accept criticism?

Well done. Lsi john 01:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you on the pro-Scientology side have behaved equally poorly, so this is a road you'd best not begin going down. Both the pro- and anti- sides have plenty of bad history. Since both camps are irremediably hostile toward one another and cannot accept that the other side could possibly be acting in good faith, it would be best to defer to uninvolved parties such as User:Durova. Iamnotmyself 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi john it goes back to what I just said, I've never cared about the religion/cult/whatever but I do care about how the rules here are applied. Each situation you've cited there is about how the rules apply, not bringing down the CoS or any editors. Anynobody 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamnotmyself that has been my point. Both the pro- and anti- editors have issues that need to be addressed. Anynobody is one of the anti- editors who, along with Smee (below) have led this charge against COFS. Their talk-page history is riddled with back and forth suspicion and allegation and hypothesizing. As a neutral observer, I'm very disillusioned. I'm not defending COFS here, as much as I am trying to say that this is not the proper forum for this issue. And unless we are prepared to eat the whole apple, we shouldn't bite into it at all. Lsi john 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durovan: You are right. I have been guilty of comments just to pick up a fight too, I apologise for this. What we need is a fresh start. Lets use communication and stop all this argument. Scientologist see these pages and are very offended by the content. There has to be way to reach the middle road. Bravehartbear 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this situation is way more complex than I first thought. Recommend sending to ArbCom. Blueboy 96 02:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboy, exactly. The people who wanted this opened, didn't want it all to come out. They only wanted you to see the COFS Smoke, so they could get a stratigic community ban on one of their opposition. Lsi john 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Iamnotmyself's comment above, to defer judgement in this issue to User:Durova. Smee 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are we interested in punishment or in getting good articles? COFS's block history for 3RR is TWO. While, Smee's is SEVEN over two usernames. Who is the bigger revert warrior?

Enough. This would try the patience of a saint. It's easy to see why most sane people stay away from Scientology related articles; I only came here because of the COI angle.

My view is that we should build a wall around the Scientology-related articles, let the two sides fight it out to the death, then siteban the winners. Iamnotmyself 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think COFS should have an opportunity to get a mentor WITHOUT any formal ban. Because, based on prior experience, any ban will be used against COFS every time that COFS makes any revert in any future article. And a ban is unnecessary, as I believe COFS has already agreed to some form of self-imposed period of abstention. Lsi john 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody, this is not about you. And it is not about me. It is not supposed to be a battleground. But it is important for everyone to know who the players are. And when you jump in with your bad-faith, it is important that people have a bit of background. I'm done here, as it is no longer productive. Lsi john 02:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS has always had the opportunity to get a mentor without any formal ban. We're discussing community sanctions because this is an editor who's run into trouble without taking proactive steps to seek help or resolve the problems.

I recommend the editor who closes this discussion look into the possibility of offline collusion between COFS's defenders. Notably, from this edit: Bravehartbear, it would probably help calm down the situation if Misou didn't get involved. The fact is, at one point he did edit from the same IP as COFS, because he was at a COS location that uses the same proxy that COFS uses. This stands in contrast from Lsi john's claims at my own user talk page. There is/was a question about sock puppets, due to the IP address. This seems to have been resolved by establishing that the COS in LA has a proxy. As I can't see IPs, I am not in a position to know if Misou and/or COFS edits from multiple (different) respective IPs or not. However, observing their edit styles, it seems to me that they are different people.[11] Note that both claims are asserted by the same person, on the same day, and just four hours apart.

As of now, I continue to extend my offer of a one month topic ban conditional upon WP:ADOPT entry and applicable to COFS only. The alternative if COFS declines that offer is a three month community topic ban. Lsi john would do well to enter that program also. I think there's been enough community input from uninvolved editors to close this discussion. If anyone disagrees strongly, hotly disputed threads from this noticeboard sometimes head directly to this alternative. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Durova. Getting a bit chilly in here, isn't it? ("offline collusion between COFS's defenders") --Justanother 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the proposed editing ban would be in regard to the (Main) namespace only, and not Talk pages. I don't approve many of COFS edits from a WP:COI standpoint, but don't like excluding anyone completely. If my assumption is correct, and COFS would be allowed to contribute on the Talk pages, it sounds like a fair solution. Anynobody 05:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, talk page posts would be fine. Durova^Charge! 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, the problem is that when we hand out one-month bans without sufficient justification we do a disservice to the editor and to the project. To the editor because that ban will be forever used as a basis for further disciplinary actions. To the project because if Wikipedia is said to operate on the wisdom of crowds then that wisdom is negated if we stack the deck and the anti-Scientologists have a long history here of stacking the deck. I do not mean SheffieldSteel but I most certainly do include Anynobody and Smee. All sides need to learn to work together! Sheffield needs to stop revert-warring and all the anti's need to stop trying to get their "opponents" blocked or banned. COFS needs to be sensitive to the POV of Scientoogy critics and "religiously" practice 1RR when changing sourced criticism. There is work that needs to be done with the criticism and with the practices too but COFS must realize that s/he will need to step lightly when dealing with the criticism. Go ahead and make the change but if it is reverted then leave it and ask for WP:30 or WP:RFC. I have done that on numerous ocassions and it works great but it is a lot of bother. Sorry, COFS, but you will need to make that effort if you want to touch the sacred cow of Scientology criticism. --Justanother 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia we don't base decisions about Editor A upon policy violations by Editor B. As I've stated before, anyone here can initiate a separate action regarding any other editor. This solution specifically keeps all parties free to do that and free to engage in dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 14:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me; I am talking about the general atmosphere in which COFS edits. That is relevant. I have been here a year now and, trust me, I know how it goes over there. Died-in-the-wool off-wiki critics of Scientology have dominated those articles for years. I do not mean SheffieldSteel; he just appears to be a guy with a POV. Here is an example; right now we have one off-wiki critic WP:SPA trying to get a Scientologist in trouble by, of all things, calling her an SPA. That is the laughable lopsided world we see in the Scn series articles where the pot calls the kettle black but only the kettle gets in trouble. COFS is not a disruptive editor. Yes, there is some back and forth between opposing POVs but so what? Those are common as dirt around here and we all have to work with other POVs. That is all I am asking. And I do not see how your "solution" or response addresses either of the points that I raise in my previous post. --Justanother 15:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If somebody operates an off-Wiki attack site, and then comes here and tries to use Wikipedia to distribute propaganda, that's a policy violation you should report. We will consider and investigate all such complaints that have a proper basis. Editors must be careful not to create the appearance that ~~you~~ they are using complaints to silence editors with a different point of view. Stopping violations of Wikipedia content policies is good. Complaining to gain advantage in a content dispute is disruptive. Those who have trouble distinguishing betwen these two cases can join the WP:ADOPT program to get help from an experienced editor. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words. And, regardless of any previous statement on my part, I am not accusing you or SheffieldSteel of "using complaints to silence editors with a different point of view." And if I was quick on the trigger then I ask you to understand how many times I have seen exactly that behavior by critics of Scientology. In fact, IMO, they have elevated it to an art form. However and that said, I continue to maintain that this is NOT the proper forum to have a discussion with or about COFS. This is way "too steep a gradient" as we Scientologists would say; meaning too much, too fast. That and the points I repeatedly make to Durova are really all I have to say. --Justanother 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as people are talking and trying to find common ground, that's a good thing, regardless of the forum. We know what Durova's offer is. I would be happy if COFS would agree not to edit the Scientology articles for a while, in order to help cool down the edit wars. COFS could still use the talk pages, and report problems with the articles in a constructive, non-disruptive way. To help prevent any more problems, I would also like to see COFS join WP:ADOPT. Whether or not there is a formal ban isn't important to me. I am only concerned with the results. If COFS doesn't want to accept a ban, for reasons of reputation, but would agree to the other things, that would make me happy. I only speak for myself, of course, but I can try to convince others if COFS agrees. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jehochman's suggestion of WP:ADOPT, in conjunction with Durova's points made pretty well clear from above, would be a positive step in the right direction. However, it is useful to keep in mind that all of these suggested actions going forward could possibly have no affect whatsoever, in light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and that the other four editors/sockpuppets/meatpuppets whatever you want to call them, and the four involved ip addresses utilized by the editor(s), are not taken into regard in this arrangement. Smee 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That is a valid point Smee, I would think that if what they claimed about a block on one of them acting as a block of all, it would be best for them to support each other, in the spirit of the proposal. For example if Misou sees COFS editing an article he/she shouldn't have, Misou would then ideally revert the "banned" changes and point out that such behavior could get both of them blocked due to their shared IP. I seem to remember the figure as being 1000 Scientologists who were affected by the COFS/CSI LA block related to the WP:RFCU you mentioned. If this is successful I'm guessing similar proposals could be worked out for future issues with other editors. Anynobody 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. Smee 06:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Truth be told, the Church of Scientology only has about eight members and all the pro-Scientology editors here are actually the same fellow - a tall, somewhat geeky dude named Derrick. Who you callin' geeky? --Justanother 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is not constructive in this discussion, especially in light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sometimes humor is the most effective way to make one's ~~point~~ ~~argument~~ presentation --Derrick 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Smee, are you pretending to misunderstand what Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS came up with and/or are you just hoping no-one will check? --Derrick 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor, Justanother. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor what? The "Derrick"? OK everyone, "Derrick" is me, User:Justanother. --Justanother^{Talk to Derrick} 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like yet another editor has voiced related COI concerns again, at WP:COIN. Smee 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, about another editor entirely. That one started as a "drive-by". "Oh look, there's a Scientologist, let's kick him." COFS is not even mentioned there. Knock off the crap, Smee. --Justanother 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently someone (the user that opened that WP:COIN incident) who is big enough to knock off the crap when it is pointed out as crap. [12] --Justanother 12:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify what is "crap". This is the Community sanction noticeboard and this is NOT the place for you to spew every unrelated smear that you can in order to color the discussion here. So knock off the crap. --Justanother 13:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, what Smee said above is literally true. Another editor did voice COI concerns. Those concerns turned out to be unfounded. See how easy it is to clear up confusion? Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it has no place here, especially as Smee neglected to inform that it was an unrelated editor in an unrelated case; the only relation being that both concern Scientology and Scientologists. But that is not enough relation seeing as this discussion is taking place on a sanction board and I consider Smee to be acting in bad faith to bring that up here without clarifying the lack of relationship and I think it is about time that I addressed that type of behavior on the part of that editor and I plan to begin collating my diffs to do so. --Justanother 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Smee's notification was relevant because we have a situation here involving possible violations of WP:MEAT. Rather than investing your time in compiling a list of greivances against Smee, why don't you take a look at WP:GA and WP:FA and see what can be done to improve the Scientology article so it qualifies for one of those awards. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing unfounded accusations around on this sanction board seems to be contagious. I better get out of here before I catch something. --Justanother 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only unfounded accusation getting tossed around here is that impartial editors have singled out Scientology. I extend a basic respect for devoted adherents to any religion and the standards I apply here are exactly the ones I would extend to any other faith. I've started an article about Judaism although I'm not Jewish, I've raised an article about Catholicism to WP:FA although I'm not Catholic, and Muslim editors have sought my input in edit disputes about Islam although I'm not Muslim. Wikipedia seeks to publish neutral and verifiable articles: when the Joan of Arc vandal tried to skew articles to a pro-Catholicism POV I intervened. I was one of the voices who contributed to the siteban of this evangelical Christian editor. Yet whenever possible I welcome editors back from the brink. Here's one who pulled back.

WP:AGF should obviate the need for these examples, but here's a recent example of my impartiality: even though I had supported this article subject's siteban on policy grounds, I nominated his biography for deletion at his request - and finally brought a two-year-old dispute to an acceptable resolution. At this arbitration case I gave evidence as the lone supporter of an editor whose ideology was diametrically opposed to my own.

What I have been saying at this thread is that serious site policy issues are involved here. I'd like to see things go into mentorship and dispute resolution. I also hope to make it very clear to all concerned that there are limits to Wikipedia's patience and good faith. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, my below edit-conflicted with your post. I am calling you on what I see as an error in judgement on your part and contributing to the misuse of this board. I disagree with your assessment of this particular case and feel that you are pigeon-holing COFS and unduly escalating something that has little evidence of needing escalation. While what I think about your motives does not mean much, I do not think it is because of any bias against Scientology, I think it is because you have a hobby. Is this horrendous on your part? IDK. I guess if I was COFS and I got a block out of this kangaroo court I might think so. The main point is I think we really need to rethink how this board is used in light of the policy on bans. I clarify that in my post below. --Justanother 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Light goes off) I just figured out my problem here. This board is being misused and I kinda suspect that the error falls mostly on Durova (gee, I hope I didn't catch that "throwing around accusations" thing). SheffieldSteel, following some bad advice he got from Jehochman over at WP:COIN tried to use this board as a substitute for WP:DR. I mean the rules above 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.
Durova, the "experienced admin" here should have put a quick stop to that and "guided toward a more appropriate venue". But she did not. Instead she jumped in with both feet but little research and dubious logic. Why? IDK, but posts on her talk page clearly indicate that she sees stuff like this as a "hobby". So maybe, instead of simply telling SheffieldSteel to go somewhere else, she indulged her hobby. Then the dynamic duo of Anynobody and Smee, a tag-team pair quick to jump on anything anti-Scientology chime in and off we go. But it all started because Durova, who should have known better, did not put the brakes to it early but instead poured on the coals.

How did I come to this epiphany? Well, I thought it odd that a so-called community sanction was taking place with a small group of mostly highly-invested editors and one "hobbyist" admin. I thought it odd that this board even existed. So I looked at the policy that is supposed to be the basis for this board, Wikipedia:Ban#Community ban. And guess what. It does not describe what is happening here at all!!! The way I think this 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 here 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 coming over here looking for the indef block or ban is clear misuse of this board. I do not blame users for trying. Users can try anything. Experienced admins need to set them straight. --Justanother 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Scientology post on COIN, was a 'question' by an editor on a wikibreak who only wanted to make sure that someone had an opportunity to 'notice'. The editor later resolved the question himself, by looking through the edits, and conclded was that no bad edits occured.

Please note, however, that Smee tried to recruit this potential anti-COS voice to engage in this discussion: here.

Also note that the editor declined and apologized for the post, stating that he had 'panicked' here.

This (sanctions board) thread was about COFS, not about Scientology and certainly not about the editor being discussed in the COIN thread. By posting the unrelated Scientology reference involving an unrelated editor, Smee seems to be posting from an anti-Scientology POV, in an effort to add unrelated smoke to this situation and to bring in more anti-Scientology viewpoints. Thus, it would appear that Smee is trying to escalate the situation in an established and documented campaign against COFS instead of help it. (I'm sorry that I'm not more familiar with all the proper wiki-links to more accurately describe what Smee is doing.) Lsi john 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Continued below per Jehochman's suggestion: here) Lsi john 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Bus stop

The user has been the primary figure in a months-long edit war at List of notable people who converted to Christianity and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion. [13] [14] [15] He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary. He refuses to accept broad consensus [16] concerning the inclusion criteria for the list, and insists that only persons who are presently Christians, and whose conversion conforms with his own strict criteria may be listed. He has made it clear through his words and actions that he will never accept any compromise measures on these matters.

Locking the article multiple times and discussing the dispute has not yielded any resolution, since the user will revert the consensus-supported edits made after the article is unlocked. [17] [18] [19] [20] The user's participation in the discussion has largely consisted of repeating the same argument that he has already posted many times to the discussion page. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] He has accused those who disagree with his views of being antisemites and members of a "hate group." [35] [36] [37] [38] Two MedCab mediations have been attempted, with the latest mediator ending the mediation as irresolvable through that means. The user refuses to accept formal mediation. The latest attempt at reaching compromise, in which the user chose to take no part, resulted in 9 votes for including all converts (former and current) in the list, and 4 editors who have so far explicitly or implicitly agreed not to contest the majority-supported option.

This is no longer a content dispute, but a case of disruptive editing. It is clear that no progress can be made on this article as long as the user is allowed to edit it, since he will not respect consensus, or accept any compromise offer. Nick Graves 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most certianly is a content dispute. There certianly is no consensus in the article. Me, Bus stop, and Cleo123 have simply been outnumbered by the numerous Christian evangelists in the article, so they declared consensus. His blocks were 3RR violations, which seem to have stopped. Stop trying to tilt the scale of the dispute in your favor by calling others disruptive and asking for a block. It looks like the arbcom case isn't going to pass; there really are only two ways we can solve this dispute at this point. We can resort to dirty tricks like this one, trying to block editors as being disruptive for having a different POV as yours and taking out your enemies one at a time like many throughout history have done, or we can do the right thing, and hope arbcom reconsiders our case. Otherwise, I don't know if this dispute will end. But please, be fair.--Sefringle^Talk 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the types of edits you're talking about, Nick Graves? Example of Bus stop's edit to article and talk page message. If so you may want to gather more diffs to prove your point. If not, you should probably find some diffs to back up the assertions you've made. Anynobody 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Sefringle: Your implication that there is some sort of evangelical Christian conspiracy to include Bob Dylan in the list does not stand up to scrutiny. There's little incentive for a Christian evangelist to crow over Dylan's conversion, as his current religious status is ambiguous. No editor involved in the discussion is a Christian evangelist, from what I can tell. There are at least two irreligious editors (myself included) and one of Jewish heritage (a former mediator) who support including ex-converts in the list. User T. Anthony, a Catholic, does not believe ex-converts should be listed, but agrees that the current consensus ought bo be respected for now. Bus stop decided to take no part in the latest attempt to find a compromise. Cleo chose not to continue in the last stage of the compromise effort. Your own preference in the last stage of the polling was to include ex-converts, though in a separate section of the article. Nick Graves 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a conspiracy. Almost all of you are Christians however, not that that matters, but you have outnumbered us to declare consensus. Please read my comments more carefully in the futute. My vote was not consensus; it was simply taking the best of the two options. Now can you please respond to the rest of my comment? And can we please try to keep our comments shorter and more to the point in the future; it is kind of discouraging to read.--Sefringle^Talk 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian evangelists? Yikes. I'll have to expand this comment in the future, but I take a bit of offense to that labeling, as it is a misrepresentation of me, and as far as I can see, almost all other editors involved. For example, the only clearly Christian fellows are myself and John Carter, as well as T.Anthony, who opposes inclusion, but accepts the validity of the voting results. JJay, Drumpler, Ttiotsw, zadignose, Moralis, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and Tendancer are, as far as I know, all non-Christians, and they all more or less support the inclusion of these individuals. That being said, I don't see a Christian majority in any case, so I don't see why you're trying to paint that picture. Concerning Bus stop's edits, this is not a "dirty trick"- I'm sorry, but this user has been continuously disruptive, and this discussion is going nowhere but in circles with his involvement. He is extremely uncooperative and unrealistic, and decides that only his opinion of a matter is to be taken seriously, even deciding that his interpretation of reliable sources is more weighty than the sources themselves. I'm pressed for time, so I may just add to this later. Hopefully, supportive diffs will be extremely easy to find. Have a nice night, anyway.--C.Logan 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read my last comment asking for shorter responses, but Oh well; I'll start. Obviously this discussion is going nowhere, which is why dirty tricks are being resorted to. My point is simple. There is no consensus.--Sefringle^Talk 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is simply off the mark. I am not an "evangelist," nor a Christian, and I resent your lable, but not as much as I resent the never ending accusations of anti-semitism from Bus Stop. The question of Bob Dylan aside, I would move to ban Bus Stop even if he was in perfect agreement with me on every point, because he is the perfect example of a disruptive editor. He will never discuss, nor agree to abide by anyone else's judgment, and he can not participate in mediated discussion. Consensus, meanwhile, has been established, by agreement among many from both sides of the issue. Consensus doesn't mean unaninimity. You are one of the few who reject the established consensus. zadignose 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not reject the consensus. I have simply been outvoted, and I still stand where I do. I'm sorry if I offended you with the Christian evangalist label, but my point is there was no consensus to begin with. Wikipedia is not a democracy after all; it strives to build consensus. If it were a democracy, then yes, I'd simply be out of luck, and this discussion would be over. But it is not. Though I must admit talk page edit warring is disruptive.--Sefringle^Talk 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly my voting suggestions sounded too much like democracy. However it seemed clear a concensus was just not going to happen. We had been through two informal mediation and a month of debate. I felt like we needed a way to get people really working on some way to end the stalemate. Maybe this was a mistake and I should have been more patient. I am skeptical of that, but I'm open to the possibility. Also it's true I found the resolution disappointing because it is essentially the exact opposite of "compromise." Still I'll tolerate it because I said I would and because consensus or agreement or whatever you want to call it can change. Anyway I'm interested in what you think we should have done instead because perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. What do you think could've resulted in a true consensus? And what do you do when people are too stubborn or secure to come to any compromise?--T. Anthony 10:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I wouldn't call this a 'dirty trick'. Many individuals involved find this course of action reasonable and expected. You disagree, of course, and I understand. Cleo, I'm sure, would as well. However, you should not discount the other editors who find Bus stop's behavior extremely disruptive and grating. This individual is the one repeatedly removing my comments right now without proper details and reasoning, as well as T. Anthony's comment. And pardon the long response, but I kept it rather short- I think that what needs to be covered should be covered, and we shouldn't encourage others to constrict their comments to the point where they would be neglectful of important points. I will try to keep it trim in the future, however.--C.Logan 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much where you move my comments. Although I think people should get my permission before removing/deleting my comments. In the one case Bus stop could've removed the part where I quoted the post he withdrew about as easily as deleting it all.--T. Anthony 09:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't so much whether Bob Dylan converted to Christianity or not. Sources use the word convert, so we use the word convert -- in relation to 1979. The list was titled List of notable converts to Christianity until a few days ago. But Bob Dylan is not a convert. He is not a Christian. He is a Jew. (He was born a Jew to two Jewish parents.) He has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. He has been involved religiously with Orthodox Jews. Yet they want to list him with wording next to his name that he has left Christianity. He has no place on the list. People (living people) who are not Christians should be excluded from the list. That is what the old title clearly implied. And those are the parameters that the List of notable converts to Judaism adheres to. These are its parameters, found at the beginning of that article:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

They are proper parameters because they are elemental parameters. They are restrictive parameters. They are parameters that prevent point of view pushing. The editors at that article have been arguing that the parameters are "all those notable people who ever converted to Christianity." That is just a contrivance. Just as it is just a contrivance to change the name of the article a few days ago. There are 200 other people on that list for whom the name change is irrelevant, because they are all Christians, or were Christian at time of death. The name change is all about Bob Dylan. They will argue it is also about two other names of non Christians. But this list shouldn't be use to "showcase" anyone who ever had an interest in Christianity. It should be a compilation of those Christians who found Christian identity by way of conversion, as opposed to the only other way -- by way of birth.Bus stop 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would like to re-present my evidence from the ArbCom case where it was recommended we take this to other channels:

I was initially made aware of the dispute when a request for help was listed at WP:EAR [39] The issue largely revolves around an editor named Bus stop on the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Bus stop continually reverts editor contributions without discussion because of one individual: Bob Dylan.[40][41][42] As can be seen in the diffs, the user continually makes accusations of anti-semitism. It should be noted that Bus stop has had opportunities to participate in votes to determine consensus, but has opted not to do so.[43] If one checks the diffs, reliable sources abound of Dylan's former Christian status. However, instead of actually discussing, Bus stop repeats pretty much everything he's said in the past and makes little to no effort at communication.[44][45][46] However, a compromise was reached by all other editors where the article would be renamed to make clear that this is a list of people who converted to Christianity and that if their status changed, it would be noted in the footnotes.[47] No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to portray Dylan as a Christian, but has desired to state that he was a Christian convert and believe the article should reflect that. Likewise, this user has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of an editor to both mediators[48][49] and an admin[50]. Drumpler 07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Bus Stop has now received his fourth block related to this issue, this time for a three revert violation (actually about seven reverts) on the TALK PAGE, where he has repeatedly removed other editor's comments. How much of this kind of behavior must be tolerated? zadignose 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the article several times due to edit disputes. Regardless of the content disputes at the article, in my opinion at least there is some very disruptive editing patterns at the article and talkpage (given the recent silliness over deleted comments) as well as quite a bit of incivility at the talk page (and this has spilled over onto various involved editors' talkpages too). I don't care one way or another about the core content issue here, but the disruptive behavior needs to stop before this page is unprotected for editing.--Isotope23 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that it might interest the individuals involved here that according to this page, Bus stop has had at best a total of 397 edits to mainspace content that was not directly involved in one of the two controversies over which he has expended over 1000 of his total 3000 edits to date on, those two controversies being over Michael Richards and Bob Dylan. While it is perhaps possible that he could in time become a good and productive editor, it is also possible that involvement in such disputes may be one of this editor's primary interests in wikipedia. He has in fact recently said on his talk page that wikipedia is ulimately based, from beginning to end, on what he calls "idealism", which from the context in which it was used seems to me to be, as he uses the term, a synonym for "opinion" or "point of view". If this is the case, and he was indicating that it is his belief that wikipedia is supposed to be made to conform to an individual point of view, then I believe that there may be sufficient cause to say that his goals in editing wikipedia are perhaps at least potentially in conflict with wikipedia's own goals of providing objective, neutral, verifiable information, and that it may be possible that the conflict in these two goals may not be reconcilable. John Carter 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although somewhat, maybe largely even, true he has received some compliments on articles about art. See Talk:Contemporary art#Recent changes.--T. Anthony 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's great, but his participation in the Dylan issue has become disruptive, and has been so for quite a while. That's what this notice was about. Bus stop is certainly capable of making constructive edits on Wikipedia, but I think he's amply demonstrated that he will not be similarly constructive on articles concerning Dylan's conversion. Nick Graves 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh sure. Just trying to not to get too hostile or something like that. Anyway I've probably spent too much time on this, I think I'm getting slap-happy.--T. Anthony 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Much of this I already posted on the arbcom page)

The List of notable converts to Christianity is at least the second time I have witnessed Bus Stop committing disruptive behavior. The first time was on the Michael Richards page, where he likewise continuously made edits over the objections of other editors. His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" as a reason to revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him--in short, it seems like "use talk page" was just being used as a shield/weapon to revert other users' contributions back to his changes, which often are the very definition of original research. We had content conflicts back then, and he continuously falsely accused me as a sockpuppet (of User:Wahkeenah, feel free to checkuser) including in edit summaries as a reason to revert my edits: [51], and WP:STALKed me to another page I frequently edit to revert my changes (in the process reverting a spam link) again using "use talk page" as a false reason: [52].

I participated on the List of notable converts to Christianity after noticing he got blocked twice for 3RR violations on Bob Dylan. [53]. His disruptive behavior seems to have gotten worse, especially now as User:Cleo123 (another disruptive editor whose m.o. is accusing others of "libel" in a very disrespectful tone) whom he befriended from the Michael Richards days) was often prodding and encouraging him, including advising him to refuse moderation and twice attacking mediators ad hominem. His m.o. now seems to have changed from "use talk page" to "anti-semitic" as his reason for discrediting all other's input whom he disagrees with.

In my opinion, Bus Stop is a disruptive editor who fits all criteria in WP:DE to a tee. I do believe he edits in "good faith"--in the sense that he probably doesn't consider himself disruptive and thinks he is making positive contributions to articles--however over the past 6 months his behavior has not changed: he continues to be unable to listen to and work with others, he continues to ignore sources (unless they support his opinions) and insist on committing original research, he does not care about how WP works and treats all articles as a blog for him to voice his own opinions (alarmingly even rhetoric-ed rules should be ignored and it's opinions that matters [54], and when others disagree with his opinions then basically he'll stay there to disrupt--for months if necessary, come hell or high water. I had been thinking that with time, his conduct would become more civil and less original research/soapboxing as there had been occasions where he made positivie contributions on other pages; however consider the rarity of those occasions and the sheer disruption he caused on the Michael Richards and especially List of notable converts to Christianity: we're talking months and hours/day at least half a dozen editors having to address his edits and personal attacks [55] [56], till eventually even more editors and mediators had to be pulled in...I have to say I think this user may just be irredeemable--he will never believe in WP policies, he'll never believe that WP is for replicating what verifiable sources say and not for him to treat as his blog of his views on the world, and he's better off not editing wikipedia. He just needs his own blog.

In summary, he has (and remember these are just a few sample, I can literally spend hours pulling up examples of his violations)

violated WP:NPA and WP:DE by disrupting the Michael Richards page for ~2 months, often using "use talk page" [57] or falsely accusing other of being sockpuppets [58] as false reason for revert
violated WP:STALK by stalking me to revert my edits (a removal of a spam link) again using "use talk page" [59]
violated WP:3RR and got blocked twice for 3RR violation on Bob Dylan [60]
violated WP:DE and blocked twice for edit warring and disruption on [List of Converts to Christianity]
violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA by personally attacking other users [61] [62]
violated WP:NOR stated he believe WP should be about opinions (specifically, his own opinions) and rules should not be followed [63]
openly stated he does not believe in WP:AGF [64] because everyone against him must be a dedicated small group of Christians intending to knock down Judaism (it's alarming User:Sefringle choose to employ the same tactic...last time I checked I for instance am an atheist, not that it should even matter)
refused a proposal for mediation (see his Talk page)
when the Mediation Cabal finally had to be invited, and two different mediators decided his obsession with one point had no merit (each time after another week of discussion to build a rough consensus), he personally attacked the mediators [65] [66] and accused them of bias and then ignored the rough consensus to continue disruption

This is not a content dispute, but a systematic pattern of WP policy violations by a single disruptive editor over a span of ~8 months. Yes on occasion he can contribute positively; but personally I find Bus Stop's sheer volume of disruption, personal attacks, complete flaunting of WP rules (primarily WP:NOR and WP:V as this user uses wikipedia like a WP:SOAPBOX to post long rants of his opinions without sources) outrageous. This user should be banned from editing all Judaism-related topics if not wikipedia altogether, as he has indicated no willingness to adapt to wiki rules or build consensus with others unless other's views agree with his own. Tendancer 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good summary. zadignose 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty long, if I don't say so myself. If someone could provide a short summary of that comment, it would be helpful.--Sefringle^Talk 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary: Bus Stop is highly disruptive, and has violated virtually every policy and guideline on Wiki. zadignose 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations check out: per WP:DE I've blocked Bus stop indefintely for persistent disruption and multiple long-term policy violations. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I've offered to unblock if Bus stop pledges to enter WP:ADOPT and avoid the article for three months. Durova^Charge! 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:COFS

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is an impossible format. Advise taking it to RfAr (and/or RFC). Topic ban while these efforts are undertaken, so long as they are, speedily. El_C 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This Scientologist editor has engaged in large numbers of edits apparently intended to whitewash the main Scientology article. Although COFS has stated a desire to follow the rules of wikipedia, their responses to other editors have frequently not been WP:CIVIL both on Talk:Scientology and in edit comments. COFS has been previously blocked and has also been warned regarding violation of conflict of interest guidelines(see above links for details) but these attempts do not seem to have helped much. When I raised this issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard, I got this suggestion:

How about taking this to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this post. SheffieldSteel 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please? Also, where are the "past investigations"? Blueboy 96 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this refers to the checkuser / SPA block, linked above. SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, and applicable here; Historically, you will garner more discussion if you post your case in full w/ evidence here instead of directing the participants to evidence located elsewhere.

As requested. COFS has...

[67] Moved cited material into a footnote. The material had the effect of calling into question the pro-Scientology point immediately preceding it in the text, yet the edit comment was "synthesis".
[68] Again moved the criticism into a footnote, while misrepresenting the court document source and referring to it in the edit comment as "clarification".
[69] Commented that editors should not attempt to obtain consensus before making sweeping changes to controversial articles.
[70] Removed cited material which contradicted an assertion attributed to L Ron Hubbard. Note the aggressive edit comment.
[71] Argued against several editors that this article's lead should not contain a summary of the criticism in the article. Note referring to other users' posts as "nonsense".
[72] Accused a good faith editor of "blind bashing" Scientology for restoring a summary of criticism.

This is just a small sample, from what I have encountered directly. COFS has a prodigious contributions history (except for the period of the ban) centred overwhelmingly on Scientology. COFS's Talk page (and particularly the archive) are a record of many attempts by other users to attempt to reason with her/him. SheffieldSteel 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those, sounds like at minimum an indefinite ban on editing Scientology-related articles is merited. The community can impose topic bans. Would also think he should be required to read and understand WP:CIVIL, WP:COI and WP:NPA, and post a statement that he's done so and apologize to everyone he's offended. Blueboy 96 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with a topic ban at least, but in light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS I have my doubts that this user would respect a topic ban. Has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for earlier dispute resolution, I believe someting was posted on AN/I but I have yet to find it. I'm sorry if I've handled this improperly - this is the first time I've done anything like this. Would starting an RfC be the best step to take next? SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]