From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Revert by user Grandmaster[edit]

Grandmaster (talk · contribs) vandalizes the aricle Nagorno-Karabakh. He removed my edits which were based on the works of the US-based sholar Robert H. Hewsen. Please note his edit summary, where he refers to the intro of the article, but my edits were also in other parts of the article and some of them were images. I agree we should reach consensus, but Grandmaster don't mentions with what exactly he don't agrees, that we could discuss these points on the talk page. In place of doing so, he removed all my edits. Previously I removed some edits of Grandmaster and gave a detailed explenation on that in the talkpage, why he is not doing the same?. I request intervention of admins. --Vacio (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The intro of this article was the result of many months, maybe years of discussion. There 13 archives of the discussions on the talk of this article. In its present form it represents a consensus, achieved with mediation of FrancisTyers and Golbez. Conflicts over this particular article resulted in 3 arbcom cases. So any radical changes to this article should be discussed at talk, with participation of mediators, and included in the article after the consensus is reached. You cannot just come and change the entire text, including the intro, to reflect certain POV. Please discuss, and remember, that it took years of discussion to reach the current version of the most controversial article on AA topic. It does not mean that it cannot be edited and changed, but the important changes should be discussed first. Grandmaster (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The comment by mediator FrancisTyers might be useful to understand the situation: [1] I would also like to note that Vacio was relieved from his parole the second time now, but again resumed edit warring, making 2 rvs on a very sensitive article: [2] [3] Grandmaster (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version, the problem is not wheither its wrong or not. The problem is your behaviour: you disagree with A and B, but you remove my edits from A to Z. The edits of FrancisTyers can't be a justification for your acting, he is a mediatior, you and me not. See also his recent post on my talk page.

I am also not in mood for edit wars, nor I am under any restrictions. --Vacio (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But you were placed on restrictions twice, and both times the restrictions were lifted after you promised not to edit war. So keep your promise. Grandmaster (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
How am I edit warring? when a mediator says that text which is not disputed can placed back [4]. --Vacio (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You made 2 rvs, that's no good. Try editing by consensus with other editors, or get mediators to help resolve the disputes. That's the way it works. Excessive reverting is not helpful. The mediator told you to start from the least contentious edits. I hope that's what you'll do. Good luck. Grandmaster (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that after reverting the edits, Grandmaster failed to discuss the points brought forward by Vacio. Arguments and documented evidence complied by Vacio were valid points, perhaps in a wrong partof the article, or they should have been made in a more concise manner in the Introduction. They should find their place in the Nagorno-Karabakh article. Regards. Capasitor (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please check the talk page. I don't see any activity on your part there. Grandmaster (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problems and arguments could be calmed down if it were decided what the actual article should be about. It seems it should be about Nagorno-Karabakh as a geographical region, and should contain a description of that region along with an account of its history and its peoples. Meowy 20:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Vacio, I'm not impressed. There's nothing actionable here but your edits contained multiple errors of spelling and grammar on a high-profile, plus they didn't look especially neutral (how is the common name not Nagorno-Karabakh? Gets double the google hits). Plus, there was no need to come straight to AE either. This can be archived now, as Francis Tyers seems to have sorted out the content issues (thank you), but consider yourself warned. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Breach of AE Sanctions[edit]

Breeches of decorum...(Durova cross dressing as a man.)

I’d like to report a breech of the AE approved sanctions which clearly state “All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.” The reverts here and here. The are four editors who disagree with this edit including myself, Gaillimh, Valenciano, BigDunc and myself. This is the second time they have breeched the AE sanction, however I did not report them on that occasion hoping they would see sense. However, on two occasions on the talk page now I’ve provided them with the opportunity to support their edit, despite the two reverts, they refuse to do so. Rather than apply any blocks under the AE sanctions, I would much prefer they self revert and use the talk page. I know I don’t have much say over that, therefore its just my opinion. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I just noticed this is the second breech just today another on a different article, were there is an ongoing discussion. Could someone have a word please? This is their third revert. --Domer48'fenian' 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I left a final warning, and a suggestion to self revert on his talk page. If he violates it again, he will be blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that SirFozzie, that was a good call. --Domer48'fenian' 19:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Further breaches since final warning by Fozz here and here. BigDuncTalk 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ideally we want Mooretwin in play as his proposal is opening up the possibility of an agreement on the long standing Ireland(state) Republic of Ireland issue. His edit wars can be annoying, but if there is any sanction can it exclude the main discussion on Ireland? --Snowded TALK 19:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked 12 hours for the further violations. If he promises to stop ALL reverting in the mean time.. I'll look to unblock, but he's violated 1RR on about 5 seperate articles, at least one right after getting a final warning. SirFozzie (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thread title has been pulled over by the spelling police. DurovaCharge! 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Charge!. --Domer48'fenian' 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. :) DurovaCharge! 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks require a warning[edit]

In light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, I have asked User:Paul_Barlow to avoid personal attacks: User_talk:Paul_Barlow#Civility_warning (like "you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views... don't pretend you are just anti-Nazi, the most cursory review of your edits shows that's not true"). He has replied with what amounts to another personal attack: [5]. Since my warning had no effect, I'd like for a neutral admin to review this case and consider another warning and putting that user on the restriction list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Paul of the ArbCom restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract continuing to game the system[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian closed at 08:20 on October 29th. It was agreed that Abtract was gaming the system by deliberately editing articles that are in my editing interests (but not his own), there by precluding me from editing them. In the closing, it was stated that he would stop these actions. He violated these restrictions on the same day of closing, which was reported, and he was blocked for a week.[6]. He has again violated this restriction, on the very same article, making a minor edit to keep his name in the list of contributers and continue randomly popping up on my watchlist and leaving me feeling unable to ever edit the article to avoid having to deal with him.[7] I've finally just removed the article from my watchlist all together, but I still felt this should be reported. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty straightforward to me. Abtract is trying to pressure and goad you into technical violations of the ArbCom. What's the usual escalating block period in cases like this? Abtract was blocked for a week for this behavior, so should it now go on to two weeks? --GoodDamon 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies; I had forgotten that this was a problem article; it was on my watch list (removed now) so, when I saw a minor correction was needed, I simply made it. Coll is not restricted therefore cannot be goaded into any sort of violation. I wonder, since she raised the subject, whether she might be accused of stalking and goading here? Abtract (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
No, she can't. You, on the other hand, have recently admitted on WP:RfAr that you deliberately sought to annoy Collectonian over a period of several months (it would have been more timely if you had admitted this before I had to spend several hours reading through evidence and writing up an arbitration decision about you). It is true that Collectonian is no longer under any enforceable restrictions, but that does not affect the enforceability of your own restrictions. If this recent edit is an isolated incident to which the administrator who reviews this thread decides to apply AGF, then fine, but please be aware that serious concerns about your editing remain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Abtract, just so there are not any more incidents, now would be a good time for you to meticulously go through your watch list and remove any and all such articles or pages. --Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Abtract has now started snipping at me unprovoked, and also not factually as my reply indicates. After my reply, he starting to take an undesirable interest in my new articles, promptly breaking the syntax in one of them[8]. Also, Talk:Gender_of_God#Confused_of_wikipedia was not helpful on an article that needs delicate handling. fyi, uninvolved clerks should keep in mind that there is another motion in play at Wikipedia:RFAR#Motion_re_Abtract. --John Vandenberg (chat) 02:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I welcome other admins opinions here, but "started snipping" would imply a series of edits, and I only see one, and a fairly minor one at that. Abstract should remember, however, that his restriction includes an instruction not to be uncivil to any user. I don't see the break in syntax in the diff you cite; indeed, in my opinion his edits improved the article. (You should not, by the way, have reverted them wholesale, or without explanation: see WP:REVERT.) In any case, I don't see much actionable in his interactions with you. As far as the other edits go, I'm inclined to agree with Tznkai and NYBrad (if I understand them correctly) that he must from this point onwards steer very carefully clear of Collectonian. He must take the same care with Alistair Haynes should ArbComm decide it. Bucketsofg 06:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I would call it very uncivil to come to my talk page, in a thread initiated by a relatively new user, and mischaracterise my contributions to the project. He has never been to my talk page before, and had no reason to turn up there then.
I did explain the revert, and the edit did break the page significantly causing the Wikisource template (the main reference) to not display. Also, the section reordering by Abtract is against the standard order in the final bullet point of MOS:SECTIONS#Section_management.
I am not requesting relief from Abtract; I am just pointing out that due to my RFAR motion, he is now initiating undesirable interaction with me. This is a disturbing pattern. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have been to your talk page before which is why it is on my watchlist. At the last visit you directed me to look at pages you had created ... surprise, surprise I then edited one which you reverted completely (see comment above from an uninvolved user). I seem to be surrounded by people who have no idea how a civilised society works. Abtract (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
My mistake; you did comment on my talk page once before, but that still gives you no right to add snide remarks when I am having a friendly discussion with someone else. Your edit was not worth repairing. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Since you're not seeking relief, we should probably bring this to a close, then. Bucketsofg 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 and Ulster Defence Regiment[edit]

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

During a messy thread including a now recinded indefinite block, Domer48 was placed under the following restriction:

That mediation has not been entirely successful, but I think lengthy enough do determine if Domer48 has learned the editing behaviors desired.

With that in mind I'd like User:Sunray and User:Shell Kinney to share their impressions to Avruch, Tiptoety and Nishkid64 - following which the referee panel will discuss and ideally come to a consensus on the question of lifting Domer48's topic ban based on his participation in mediation. The mediators and panelists should use whatever form of on or off wiki communication that would be most effective, but the panel should report their final findings here.

The very purpose of instituting the referee panel was to keep administrators and editors who have been previous engaged in Troubles related issues out of it - so I would ask that we allow the mediators and referee panel work in peace. Thank you.--Tznkai (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While it is clear that Domer48 did join mediation, and abided the terms of his editing restrictions I am not sure that much was accomplished, or that we saw a very large change. While I am aware that Domer84 has technically completed his restrictions; before it is lifted I am very interested to hear from the mediators as this comment interests me. Tiptoety talk 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tiptoety for your comments above. I was not sure what to expect after this edit here, but it all turned out alright in the end. I would just like to say that there was a lot accomplished, but I felt there was a lot more to do. Unfortunately we were prevented from completing the mediation, I was definitely willing and attempted to keep it going despite the set backs. I would be very interested to see examples were my editing would be considered less then acceptable, either during or following the mediation. These examples would no doubt be very beneficial to both my self and possibly other editors who experience the same difficulties. As per my agreement, I have completed the mediation, weather it was successful being only comparative with my editing prior to mediation, I would have to say yes. I would therefore like to get back to editing the UDR article, as I consider I have a lot to contribute. I would caution though, that any lifting of AE imposed sanctions be conditional on editor’s conduct, and agreement to adhere to our editing policies. Lifting of sanctions on articles, should be coupled with the application of sanctions on individual editors should their editing become disruptive. That is just my opinion, but I’d like it to be considered, thanks --Domer48'fenian' 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  • As a reminder, Mediation Committee communications, including the case page, talk page and any associated subpages, are privileged communications. As such, they have been deleted and replaced with a summary. seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Without going into messy bureaucratic details and to try to avoid any undue conflict, I'm going to ask that that the referees look only at Domer48's edits outside of the mediation communications, keeping in line with the privileged nature of communications as noted above. Furthermore, the mediators are explicitly encouraged to share only as much as they are comfortable with, within established mediation policies.--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If the question is whether Domer48 has successfully completed mediation or not, how is that determination to be made without reference to the mediation? I have no problem reviewing his work outside of mediation, and planned on it anyway, but it seems like it will be hard to come to a conclusion on whether he has met the conditions of the topic ban using that alone. Avruch T 04:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But, I think that can happen while ensuring that any and all privileged communication remain private. I think what I was asking to hear, was the mediators opinions. I am interested to hear if they feel the mediation was successful and if it was not was that due to Domer48. Also, I am interested to hear if they felt Domer was constructive during the mediation. In response to Tznkai I can agree to look outside of mediation but feel that the most important aspect of the editing restrictions were in reference to the mediation. A review of his actions during the mediation can be done without violating anyone's privacy or privileged communication. Tiptoety talk 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense, what I was trying to say is don't go rummaging in the privileged information while doing so, but you obviously know that. I'll just get out of your way now.--Tznkai (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the cornerstones by which Wikipedia's Mediation Committee operates is that parties' agreement to mediation is voluntary, based on the knowledge that what happens in the mediation is privileged and therefore cannot be used against them in later proceedings. This is designed to ensure that parties participate fully and frankly without concern as to how their comments might be interpreted later. Another important principle in that the mediator is neutral and does not form a view as to the content on discussion or the parties involved. Were a mediator later to rule as to the conduct of one of the parties, it would undermine that neutrality. Similarly, the mediation process would be hampered if the parties felt that the mediator was in fact sitting in judgment on them and might make a later report about his or her impressions of their conduct. Whilst the Mediation Committee is sympathetic to the need to develop new approaches to resolving issues in problematic topic areas, it is our opinion that the second element of this proposal violates both the privileged nature of mediation and the neutrality of the mediators.

The Mediation Committee regrets that it was not consulted before this proposal was made.

On behalf of the Mediation Committee,
WJBscribe (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently the result of serious miscommunication, the responsibility for which lies with me. I regret that I did not more thoroughly examine the issue, and that I did not double and triple check everything was in order. It was foolish for me to believe that in the various threads and communications on this issue that all applicable parties were fully aware - I took the lack of objections to indicate that I had covered all the bases. I think it is clear now that I instituted this proposal in October, it was not proper then, and I apologize for it. I apologize specifically to Domer48. In order to avoid any possible damage to the Mediation system, I do no think this proposal should complete its implementation, which means that Domer is left hanging. In order to avoid that, I am lifting his topic ban on my own discretion, and ask that the community endorse this action.--Tznkai (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse - Seeing as Domer48 has completed mediation, along with the fact that any further review of said mediation would result in a violation of the Mediation Committee's common practices. I have reviewed Domer's recent contributions and find nothing that stands out as a red flag. Tiptoety talk 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I think it's best if Domer returns to editing on articles, hopefully the mediation and the discussion will help him avoid the sticky situations he was in before (sometimes through no fault of his own) :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what the mediation committee has said, I wish to make one additional comment. The mediation was unsuccessful. To say more about it would, almost inevitably, give rise to inappropriate conclusions. Sunray (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you all for your comments above, and Sunray I really think you are selling yourself shot. For me it was successful, and I took a lot from it, and I put that down to putting a lot into it. I'm glad to be back editing the UDR article, but will probably stick to the talk page for awhile. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 08:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and related articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This matter has been accepted for arbitration. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


I have been informed that this is the proper area for this, so I am moving it from WP:AN/I to here. Please bear with me, as I have copied the current discussion there verbatim, to provide full context. --GoodDamon 18:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term single-purpose account that edits solely at articles concerning Scientology, previously under the name User:COFS, which is an acronym for Church of Scientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist.

However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the Scientology article again, as well as several sub-articles. In the discussions that have followed, an old ArbCom case involving Shutterbug has been brought up. The ArbCom case ended with some minor temporary topic bans and blocks, but little else. Part of the reasoning that lead to this result was that Shutterbug (or COFS, at the time) claimed a particular Church of Scientology-owned IP address he/she had edited from,, including this accidental edit, was a proxy used by various hotels and such. Shutterbug recently reiterated the claim here. During the ArbCom, this claim was apparently given the benefit of the doubt, as a checkuser revealed that several similar single-purpose accounts had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were:

I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case.

I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per these Wikiscanner results, there are few if any to be found.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the claim of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof.

There is also an issue of incivility. In this edit, I decried the sudden battling over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular inappropriate edit performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said "Let's talk and no personal attacks, please." As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to retract it, and asked again on the user's talk page. The response speaks for itself.

Introductory discussion[edit]

My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //roux   09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. neuro(talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point.. so... how about an indef topicban from COS articles until a couple of admins (to be named) agree that this isn't an SPA, topic ban to be at least a month? //roux   14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
See the ArbCom results I mentioned. This has already been tried. Shutterbug was topic-banned October 2nd, 2007 for one month. During that month, Shutterbug did not contribute to a single article. Shutterbug did, however, contribute to a few incident reports and checkusers associated with other users who edit in the same area of interest. So he/she was actively involved in the encyclopedia for that month, but not in any content capacity. --GoodDamon 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

New developments[edit]

This section is intended for providing new information to administrators above and beyond the initial introduction and related discussions. Anyone can add new developments here. I welcome comments, but for organizational purposes I ask that anyone commenting on new developments do so in a section dedicated to their own comments. Several, including myself, already have such sections.

Returning account User:Misou

As of December 5, 2008, Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has returned to editing in Scientology articles. Misou has not edited since January 5th, and is listed in the original ArbCom as a confirmed sockpuppet, based on the supposed proxy address. This is not intended to comment on the quality of Misou's edits -- I actually agree with several of his/her deletions, as the sources in question were probably not reliable -- but simply to inform administrators that another possible sock who has long been dormant has come back. --GoodDamon 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New ArbCom report filed by User:Justallofthem against User:Cirt

Report filed here. --GoodDamon 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by previously involved parties[edit]

Comment by Justanother (Justallofthem)[edit]

As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. As much as I respect GoodDamon, he seems to be trying to reopen an arbitration in the improper forum for such an effort. The arbitrators were well aware of Shutterbug's POV and history of editing from a CofS-owned proxy server and made no remedy that restricted her editing. If GoodDamon thinks that they did not make the correct decision then he should present his evidence to the arbitrators and ask that they reopen the case, not make his case here. The other point GoodDamon brings up in incivility. Incivility is a much-disputed issue but if Shutterbug was uncivil then perhaps she deserves a warning though I see little in the way of objectionable incivility in the diffs provided. However, I cannot stress enough that GoodDamon should move his doubts about the arb outcome to the arb page. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) This is not relevant here as the main thrust of my comment was that GoodDamon bring his issue to this forum. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the ArbCom is actually the correct forum anymore. When there is ample evidence of a serious WP:COI, and the only credible counter-argument -- upon which the ArbCom result was largely based -- turns out to be rather incredible, it ceases to be a content dispute, and content dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer the appropriate venue for dealing with it. Believe me, I thought long and hard about this, and coming to the decision to file this as an incident report was not easy. But this is the proper venue for it. Shutterbug and several older accounts edit from Church-owned IP addresses, and those addresses produce, almost without exception, content in Church-related articles. The proxy argument does not hold up, so we can only conclude that what we see with our eyes is in fact what's there, a conflict of interest.
Note I do not propose banning the accounts in question outright. But I seriously doubt they will choose to edit in other areas. They are well-established as single-purpose accounts. A single-purpose account editing with a conflict of interest is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. I see little activity on the part of Shutterbug that is deserving of the attention of AE. I like and respect GoodDamon but the entire thrust of this thread is his IDONTLIKEIT evaluation of the findings and recommendations of the arbitration. He is not asking for enforcement, he is asking that the arbitration be redone. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you like. However, part of the original ArbCom was this statement of principle: "Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles."
I think it is now firmly established that the proxy argument is implausible and unlikely. I do not say this lightly: It is probably a lie. If the editor or editors behind the accounts and IP addresses in question are in fact "working" on behalf of the Church of Scientology, then it is a violation of this principle. And considering the ratio of edits to Scientology-related articles versus non-Scientology-related articles, this appears to be the case. Look... I understand how you feel, I really do. But once it came out how unlikely the proxy argument was to be true, this stopped being a content issue and started being an issue of Wikipedia abuse. --GoodDamon 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no flaw in the "proxy argument" and nothing new has been "discovered". The consensus of the arb was, IMO, that those editors that had access to the proxy likely were connected in some way to the church and because of this the lot of them may be treated as one editor for the purpose of consensus building or 3RR issues, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Multiple editors with a single voice and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Use of Church of Scientology-owned IPs. The solution of the arbitrators was to place the Scientology articles under article probation, not to impose sanctions against Shutterbug (COFS) or any of the others. You have not uncovered any new news GoodDamon, you simply seem to disagree with the findings and recommendations of the arb. That is your right but it is not an enforcement issue. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I stand by what I said concerning the proxy argument. The IP addresses in question simply have too few edits in areas unrelated to Scientology to plausibly be proxies associated with hundreds or thousands of users. The many-editors-one-voice decision does not preclude someone later taking a look and realizing the proxy argument is bogus. --GoodDamon 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't get your point. The "proxy argument" was simply in support of the claim that these editors were not sockpuppets or even meatpuppets; that they were simply different Scientologists in, often, different parts of the world that likely only knew one another through Wikipedia and were not part of some organized cabal of Scientologists. Obviously that cannot be proven one way or the other but the edit history and behavior is certainly consistent. Scientology critics do a much better job of coordinating editing here than Scientologists do, probably because only the critics are trying. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Justanother, please define who the "critics" you allude to are. Please show us facts that demonstrate there is coordination of their efforts on Wikipedia. If you cannot, then you are, at best, speculating. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDamon[edit]

At this point, I would like to take a step back and ask that previously uninvolved administrators look at the ArbCom and determine if continued involvement by these editors constitutes violation of the ArbCom ruling in light of what I perceive as the likelihood of Church of Scientology involvement. I would characterize the editor or editors as:

  • Confirmed single-purpose accounts
  • Confirmed biased accounts that edit from a particular POV
  • Confirmed sockpuppets, based on the checkuser results during the ArbCom
  • Most likely WP:ROLE accounts inappropriately working on behalf of the Church of Scientology

If these characterizations do not bear out, or if this is not the proper venue for this discussion, I will gladly accept that. --GoodDamon 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466[edit]

As per the arbcom decision, the Scientology article is on probation. [9]

Looking at the edit war that led to article being protected I count the following reverts:

  • Spidern and Cirt had two reverts each.

I believe GoodDamon and Shutterbug should be trout-slapped and told not to do it again. Since Shutterbug has done this sort of thing before, s/he should perhaps be restricted to just posting to the talk page for a week or so.

IMO, the whole edit war was a very silly and entirely unnecessary episode, largely caused by Shutterbug making sweeping changes without prior discussion on the talk page. All the more regrettable since at least some of the changes – chronological fixes etc. – would seem to have made sense and might well have gotten support on the talk page. Jayen466 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In each of those cases, well-sourced material was removed or altered without prior discussion. If you feel restoring those edits violated the ArbCom ruling, I encourage you to open a case here for that as well. But I stand by those reverts; for some context, in this edit I restored citations to Time Magazine and a Salon news article that had been removed in this edit with an edit summary of "rm non-notable/opinion". If it is a violation of the ArbCom case to undo egregiously poor edits such as that, I will be very much surprised and will seek changes to the case itself, as frankly... that's just plain silly. --GoodDamon 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Clear and obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR; "edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt". It's usually better to wait and let someone else revert it – which will demonstrate consensus – or raise it on the talk page and/or AN/I than revert someone 4 times in a row yourself. Jayen466 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
On closer inspection, I don't think those edits qualify as 4RR.
  • The first edit occurred at the beginning of the brief edit war. I reverted the re-addition of several primary sources. To Shutterbug's credit, he/she didn't choose to reinsert the primary sources, and instead went with just a secondary source. I did not contest it.
  • The second and third edits were unrelated to the first and involved a section of the lead. I did reach 2RR here, and perhaps should have waited for someone else to revert, but felt it would be a good point to remind Shutterbug of WP:BRD.
  • The fourth edit was unrelated to any of the others, and you already know about that one.
In any event, I've voluntarily extracted myself from the article until all this is resolved. --GoodDamon 05:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
[18] Jayen466 11:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I had forgotten about that particular clause. I'll be more mindful of it in the future, and appreciate you pointing it out to me. --GoodDamon 15:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shutterbug[edit]

Why did I not just get rid of my user name and started editing with another one, if it am such a red flag? That's rather stupid, isn't it? I did not because the truth is that the IP is/was a proxy used by hundreds if not thousands of people. As I said before and there is no evidence saying otherwise: I occasionally used it when being in a Church of Scientology facility, waiting for someone etc. Further, the diversity of the subjects being edited from that IP between 2004 and 2006 underlines that there have been more than one editors on this IP (wikiscanner). I was not prepared for the amount of hostility I am being subjected with now and I wasn't a year ago when I got surprised with an avalanche of accusations that had nothing to do with real life. Ok, the Arbcom determined there have been several other people editing under the same IP. I think that was a true finding with no significance especially as I even volunteered this information as much as I could. As an additional note: Cirt is a known and longterm anti-scientology editor who went by the user names of Smeelgova, Smee and WilhelmvonSavage. Per her edit history she works 8-11 hours per day on Wikiprojects, almost exclusively working on anti-religious subjects and its peripheral subjects (like the names of Scientology members, anti-religious books and the like). Though I welcome the work and information she provides I don't think she should be included in this "neutral" discussion. Lastly it is an old trick on Wikipedia to attack the editor with administrative rules instead of concentrating on making better articles. I have been subject to this abuse of Wikipedia policy before and seems to happen again. Result: dozens of text pages filled with discussions, zero articles improved. Maybe there is some kind of protection against "using Wikipedia policy to shut up opposing editors"? Shutterbug (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some truth to what Shutterbug is saying. No one complained about the edit war, which was the work of several editors, the complaint was about who Shutterbug is. I'd be just as happy packing this up and getting back to doing something useful, like discussing how we can improve the article. Jayen466 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Even if it turns out I'm a complete goober for opening this, and I get that trout-slapping you mentioned, I would rather see this come to its natural conclusion than close it prematurely. If I'm wrong, I want to know I'm wrong. At the moment, I am voluntarily recusing myself from editing or commenting in any Scientology-related article until administrators have finished reviewing this and make some sort of pronouncement. I really don't think much in the way of article improvement will happen until then. --GoodDamon 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Just checking into the edit history of the celebrity centre, I would like to ask Cirt to consider that edit summaries like this one and this one may come across as dehumanising or baiting, and at any rate may not be conducive towards establishing a more collaborative atmosphere. Shutterbug's deletion in Celebrity Centre had some justification under WP:NOT#NEWS; at the very least, it is an issue that editors could in good faith disagree on, and it would have been kinder to reflect that in the edit summary. Jayen466 23:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how you believe that WP:NOT#NEWS was relevant to that deletion. DigitalC (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because something was in the news does not mean it is encyclopedically relevant to the article topic. Imagine a printed encyclopedia: Would they be likely to mention this? Would a scholar in a book? I think WP often goes too far in the tabloid direction. We're citing celebrity gossip mags ... WP is not supposed to be a tabloid newspaper. I guess I am a more stuffy person. Must be the age. Cheers, Jayen466 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it is undue weight to mention this. The difference between a printed encyclopedia and WP is the amount of detail on EVERY subject. I do think that if a book was to be published on the topic of the celebrity center, within the next few years, that yes it would mention this. I still don't see how you feel WP:NOT#NEWS applies, as it is really talking about whether something is suitable for an article topic, not the amount of weight to apply to material sourced from news reports. I don't feel it is appropriate to misrepresent WP:NOT#NEWS as a justification for completely deleting sourced content. DigitalC (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sadly, this is basically what I expected. There is no evidence that this IP address is or was a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands of people." That's more or less what this report is about. Due to the nature of its edits, and the edits of logged in users on that address, the chances that "hundreds if not thousands of people" would edit Wikipedia solely to add pro-Scientology material to it is vanishingly small. --GoodDamon 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
GoodDamon, I think you have a misunderstanding. The IP address belongs to the proxy server that a large number of Scientology organizations worldwide use to access the internet. The ""hundreds if not thousands of people" are using that proxy server to do the myriad of things that people do on the internet. Only a few are editing Wikipedia. I have a totally analogous situation in my life. Occasionally I edit from work. There are prolly well over 9,000 people that access the internet through my work proxy. Yet only a few edit Wikipedia at all as far as I can tell from the edits coming from that IP address. So if I say that thousands of people use the IP address does the fact that only a few edit here prove me a liar? Does that clear things up? You should really AGF a bit more and lighten up on Shutterbug. She does not deny having a POV. Let me tell you, these articles are pretty galling to anyone that has any knowledge of Scientology beyond spoon-fed criticism. Galling in that they are just plain wrong in many instances. All the bad is blown out of proportion, all the good is minimized and distorted. Critics race to include the latest bit of negative material but don't bother to include the positive. How many are racing to include recent statements by Germany's minister of security that he found no evidence that any of the objectionable material in Hubbard's writing is practiced in Scientology? Yet our critics love to fill articles with their original research based on primary materials. They scream when the primary material explains Scientology as a philosophy in manner that can be understood yet support out-of-context primary materials that cast Scientology in a bad light. You can see that disparity in these two articles that I just put up for AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Scientology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and sex (2nd nomination). Shutterbug's perspective is welcome here. Feel free to haul her back if she crosses a line. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A few words here. Justallofthem's assertions about proxies are unsupported by the Committee's findings. Several parts of the decision reject his claims:

For months I counseled Justanother in good faith that the 'proxy' argument he was attempting to advance did not serve the best interests of his faith. No evidence was forthcoming from the organization's IT staff to bolster the claim. Then while the arbitration case was underway the Wikiscanner came out and the weakness of the 'proxy' argument got demonstrated empirically in the form of real world news coverage about Scientology-based IP edits to Wikipedia. That news reflected more poorly for that religion than whatever PR problem they were trying to correct. And also, people who actively disliked that religion made the most of the negative press.

It was my hope when that case concluded that Justanother, Shutterbug, and other editors would learn from their mistakes and turn over a new leaf. Only one really did: he now edits as Cirt. Cirt has contributed 11 featured articles, 13 featured portals, 31 good articles, and 47 DYK entries. He has become an administrator on three WMF projects including this one, has become an OTRS volunteer, and was elected a member of the Arbitration Committee on Wikinews. It is my earnest wish that editors from both sides of the dispute would make a similar turnaround. (Heck, I'd love to see that turnaround in any dispute). If any Scientologist adjusts to WMF standards that well it would give me pride to nominate them for adminship.

So in the holiday spirit (since it's reasonable to guess most of the editors associated with this thread are American?) let's give thanks for the progress that's happened so far and put this discussion on hold through the holiday weekend. Requesting as a courtesy: please suspend discussion. I'll be around off and on (working on a ragtime composer biography--something much more to my taste than this subject). Best wishes all and happy Thanksgiving. DurovaCharge! 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I think you are confused. I am not one of the editors affected by the IP issue. I would be interested to know exactly what you find unconvincing in the explanation and personal analogy I give above of why Shutterbug's "proxy argument" makes sense because you are being kinda vague. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Not at all confused; I knew from the start that you weren't covered directly by that particular IP issue. Yet you advanced the proxy rationale then and you continue to now. That you do so is more than a little surprising since it generates such a substantial PR exposure to your religion. This site has many uninvolved volunteers who would be glad to address POV attacks against any religion. Perhaps because yours comes under attack more than most, it may have been hard to accept that feedback. Neither Wikipedia nor Scientology benefitted from the press that the Wikiscanner brought, yet you have to agree that my cautions were absolutely on target a year and a half ago. Now I'm counseling you that you're running a similar risk again. We were lucky the COFS arbitration case didn't get noticed then. The case is old news, but your actions and Shutterbug's could make it relevant again. Suppose for a moment that this advice is clueful and sincere: it's been right before, and it's been right in ways that would have helped you if you had listened. DurovaCharge! 00:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do not think I am advancing the argument you believe I am. Please reread my explanations and comments to GoodDamon. I personally have no exposure here, I just don't want to see Shutterbug railroaded by out-of-process actions or misreadings of the results of the previous action. If the arbitrators want to reopen the COFS case that is fine with me but I see little need to. Enjoy your turkey-day, Durova.--Justallofthem (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
If you still suppose I'm addressing any personal exposure on your part in relation to the IP server issue, then you've missed the point. Best wishes and happy holidays. DurovaCharge! 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I take it that you are warning that abuse by Church-connected editors will reflect badly on the Church. First off, that is no concern of mine. Meaning that it not my business what the Church does or does not do and how it reflects on them. I hope and expect that the Church acts honorably and if not then that is on them. I just do the best I can for my part and as an individual Scientologist. Secondly and more germane, Shutterbug has stated that she has no official PR capacity in the Church and that her edits are her own. She edits from her POV but so what. So does just about everyone else that edits in the Scientology articles. Anyway, there is little point in going back and forth further on this. Take care. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Another note, Durova: Did the Arbcom try to find out from the Church of Scientology what this IP address is? Did you or anyone involved that time care to ask this question to anyone? I can't remember that. Instead assumptions and outright lies are being repeated over and over again. This is really frustrating. Shutterbug (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Very glad I took the holiday off before returning. It's quite simple, really. A year and a half ago I was trying to protect both you and Wikipedia from negative press. You didn't take the advice and a lot of bad press really happened. Now you're repeating most of the same mistakes that created that problem in the first place. It certainly won't be my doing if this makes news again. I hope you take the advice on board and reform. If you don't, I hope this board saves you from yourselves.

It's more than a little bit comical: there are better solutions to the meritorious part of your concerns, but you reject feedback and fail to adjust. It's as if you treat all dispute resolution with extreme myopia, regard anyone whose response amounts to 'no' as an opponent, and try to win as many short-term interactions as possible regardless of the ultimate consequences. ArbCom didn't accept your 'proxy' rationale but in the larger picture that's irrelevant: neither the press nor the public accepted it. You say you're worried about hostile critics as you set yourselves up again for the very same fall.

Best wishes; by cautioning you again my conscience is clear. DurovaCharge! 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am always cautious if someone talks about "press and the public". I could not find any press or documentation of "public opinion" about Shutterbug. Could you elaborate, please? Shrampes (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial topic ban proposal and arguments[edit]

  • Cirt, as an anti-Scientologist with a long history of highly POV edits under your current and previous accounts, don't you think that you would be doing yourself as an admin and the project a service by recusing yourself here instead of leading the charge? (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt for material relevant to my point)--Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please define "anti-scientologist" and provide us with evidence that Cirt conforms to that definition. Justanother, are you edits ever POV?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Comment - Assuming it is an indef, and applies to the other similar accounts. This is basically the standard response when evidence of an unresolvable COI exists. --GoodDamon 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) (Edit - Striking my !vote per Cirt's recommendations below. I brought up this whole issue, but will gladly defer to uninvolved administrator intervention, whatsoever that intervention may be.) --GoodDamon 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this has already been addressed at a higher forum than this one. If GoodDamon does not like the arbitrators' work then he needs to take that up with them, not here. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As ye wish, so shall ye receive. I've moved this here, per Durova's statement on the matter. --GoodDamon 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't see any evidence of incivility on the talk page and in principle support this user's right to edit Scientology topics, just as Jewish Wikipedians are entitled to edit the article on Israel, muslims are entitled to edit the article on 9/11, etc. However, I would support a warning that the user should refrain from edit wars and seek consensus through the talk page. Jayen466 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand, I fully agree with you in principle. Denying Christians the right to edit at articles like Christianity would be absurd. But those aren't good analogies. A better analogy would be if computers owned by the Vatican were used solely to produce edits favorable to Catholicism in Wikipedia. That would be inappropriate. --GoodDamon 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
But her edits feel like the actions of an individual to me. I would have no problem with someone in the Vatican administration making an occasional Wikipedia edit from their desk in Rome. The Wikiscanner evidence that Cirt posted on Talk:Scientology showed 122 edits from that IP, made across 15 wiki projects during the period 2004–2007. Even if all of those were attributable to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), that is less than one edit per week, and on the face of it, a storm in a teacup. Jayen466 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see the ArbCom ruling. Those were by no means the only edits from that IP address that Shutterbug performed. They were simply the ones he/she performed while logged out. And you'll note that the logged out edits almost all pertain to Scientology. --GoodDamon 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Adding the logged-in edits, Shutterbug has made around 1750 edits to various Scientology-related articles over a period of about 2 years then, the vast majority of them prior to the September 2007 arbcom. That's really not frenetic activity since the arbcom, comparatively speaking. These are the remedies from the arbcom case. Apart from edit-warring, which you were guilty of as well, which one has Shutterbug violated? Jayen466 22:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - I personaly have no problem with Scientologists I however am upset with Shutterbug's Deletion of my material under Celebrity Centre, The suggestion that my material was "not Notable" as in Shutterbug's words is absurd (on the google search of Scientology it came up on top). I also dislike him of her deleting things regaurding Scientology's Xenu story which is backed up by many sources including the freezone. I doubt this ban will keep the Proxyer of Shutterbug from editing however I suggest Shutterbug edit his or her other interests, I harbour no ill will to Scientologists but I will not stand Idle as the "truth" is rewritten. --Zaharous (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page because at the time it was a news item still in progress (it still is and clearly not covered by WP:NOT. You are taking revenge here - thanks for being open about it - while Cirt is reverting edits solely on the grounds of "COI" (which is not even a Wikipedia policy), not on the grounds of content. Interesting. Shutterbug (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, WP:COI is a behavioral guideline. --GoodDamon 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to Wikipedia policy WP:LOP. Shutterbug (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I would not call it revenge you have just done some deleting on Scientology topics in general, You are probably a good person I just don't like your deletions I just like a whole Wikipedia not a half one. Although your edits are in good nature, I think. --Zaharous (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Glad you came here not to act in revenge for an edit dispute. So you think my edits are in good faith but you support to kick me out of Wikipedia? I don't get it, please explain. Shutterbug (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record: No one has proposed you "kick [you] out of Wikipedia." What has been proposed is a topic ban for editors who appear to edit on behalf of the Church of Scientology. If that equates to being kicked out of Wikipedia for you, then that is frankly rather indicative of the problem. --GoodDamon 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll support a topic ban. This person's editing shows a clear and persistent failure to strive for neutrality. It is quite obviously focused on systematically minimizing information embarrassing to their organisation. This, the tendentiousness, and not any incivility or edit-warring, is the primary act of disruption here. Tendentiousness is always the root cause of these kinds of problems; incivility and edit-warring are only the symptoms. The causes are what needs to be sanctioned. Fut.Perf. 15:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The fact that the Scientology page is lock from editing until disputes have been resolved demostrates that there are serious discrepancies. During this month large chunks of data have been deleted from the page. Something that is alarming to some editors like myself. The issue of edit-warring is being addressed right now on the page. It takes two to have a fight or edit-warring, I don't see the other party being questioned here when those edits are equaly or far more alarming. Being Scientology a crontroversial issue some edit-warring is expected. I don't see Shutterbug edits being done in bad faith, is just another point of view. Removing this point of view will reflect negatively on the page. Bravehartbear (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, Bravehartbear, but this report really isn't about the edit war. I saw evidence that I personally was never a witness to before that indicated Shutterbug and several other accounts are editing on behalf of the Church of Scientology. This is unethical, antithetical to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, and completely inappropriate. WP:ROLE accounts are not allowed. No editor in good standing should be expected to edit in such an environment. Imagine for a moment that computers belonging to the Vatican were allowed to continuously edit on behalf of Catholicism, and remove all unflattering material from the encyclopedia about that particular belief system; no editors would stand for that.
On the matter of the edit war, I believe it started largely from misunderstandings. The article needs to formally become a summary style article, because the topic of Scientology is simply too big to fit in one article. The natural first choice for trimming in preparation for doing that is the removal of WP:PRIMARY sources, which if you'll consult the editing history, were exactly what was being removed. Eventually, I'm sure good secondary sources for a lot of that content could go into the beliefs and practices article, but there are simply too many sub-topics to make the beliefs and practices of the belief system more than one subsection of the main article. You've got organizational history, controversies, hidden doctrines, notable members, and so on. There isn't room to do any one of them complete justice on the main article, so each should be summarized. This was an ongoing process when Shutterbug and Su-Jada returned to the article. --GoodDamon 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
GoodDamon, this is not about WP:ROLE and never has been. Please do not exaggerate the situation so as to worsen it. Again, all you are saying is that you have become aware of the facts and issues of the arbitration and do not agree with the findings and recommendations. Justallofthem (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No what I think GoodDamon is trying to say is that a single purpose account is a great insult to neutrality and sadly I have seen only about ten edits from Shutterbug that are not related to Scientology, Single Purpose accounts greatly compromise the neutrality of an article. --Zaharous (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. There's nothing inherently wrong with a single-purpose account as long as it can keep its biases in check. On some articles, such as those involving esoteric sciences, most of the accounts editing there are technically single-purpose accounts, in that they're editing in a narrow range of articles that reflect their interests. The problems arise when you combine SPAs with bias, and evidence that they're editing on behalf of a particular entity or organization.
Now in answer to Justanother... This really is about WP:ROLE. The proxy argument, which seemed to have some traction in the ArbCom, and was likely at least partially responsible for those findings and recommendations, has fallen apart -- no, don't try to defend it again, it doesn't even pass the sniff test anymore. So what we're left with is pretty straightforward: A series of accounts editing from the Church of Scientology's network on behalf of the Church of Scientology. It's so cut and dry it astonishes me that there's even any further argument on this. It's against Wikipedia's policies, and it's just plain unethical. --GoodDamon 05:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The current state of the proxy account debate is this. It seems to me the assertions about why the IP could not be an address used by a greater number of people were simply based on fantasy and wishful thinking – I am not convinced by what I have read so far. And where do you see a "series of accounts editing from the Church of Scientology's network on behalf of the Church of Scientology"? Which accounts are these? Have any of them edited recently? Shutterbug was advised in the arbcom not to recruit RL friends to help her edit the WP article in line with her POV. Where is the evidence that there has been a recurrence of such behaviour now? And while we are talking about SPAs, I am hard-pushed to find any edit by AndroidCat (talk · contribs), for example, that does not relate to Scientology. Yet I do not see anyone raising that as a problem. To be clear, while my opinions may be different from AndroidCat's, I have no problem with his contributions: but there is a double standard at work here if Shutterbug gets clobbered for being an SPA, and SPAs on the opposite side of the debate do not receive any such criticism. Jayen466 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Since user Jayen has seen fit to drag me into this, please study my editing record over the last few years. Study my history of reprimands for edit-warring, and any proof that I am editing as a sock-puppet or meat-puppet for an organization with COI problems. Check the number of time that I have been caught editing with a block of other identities from the same IP address with a lame excuse about a mythical proxy network. There, that didn't take very long, did it? Unlike some other editors, I don't have unlimited time to spend editing Wikipedia, and so I do concentrate in areas where I can provide hard cited facts. And I would like an apology. AndroidCat (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Apology gladly given. No offence was intended. Jayen466 11:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In this regard, note that off-site canvassing seems to be a known and ongoing problem on the Scientology opponents' side. Jayen466 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I just don't buy that argument. You have demonstrated that it's theoretically possible for the Church of Scientology's proxy used in hundreds of hotels to resemble AOL's old proxy system, and for seemingly thousands of users to have restricted their Wikipedia edits through that proxy to nearly 100% pro-Scientology behavior. There is no evidence for this, but it has the distinct advantage of being difficult to outright disprove. But the same logic could be applied to any sockpuppet discovered by checkuser; "Hey, we can't block Spammer663 as a sockpuppet of Spammer662 because he might be using a poorly designed proxy similar to the way AOL used to connect users to the Internet!" Sorry, no. --GoodDamon 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
But where is the alleged "series of accounts" editing these articles, now, after the arbcom decision? Jayen466 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Shutterbug, who used to be COFS, is currently editing. Do you accept at this point that the proxy argument is almost certainly proven to be untrue now? If so, then any account that edited from the known Church of Scientology IP addresses -- and edited strictly in favor of Scientology, instead of in other areas of interest such as photography -- is or was doing so from Church of Scientology property, and thus almost certainly was doing so on behalf of the Church. That is improper behavior. Accounts that exist solely to cast a favorable light on Scientology on behalf of the belief system's largest organized membership are not permitted, per WP:ROLE, any more than accounts run by paid Microsoft employees would be permissible in that article. And please bear in mind that even so, I am not proposing a ban from Wikipedia. I am proposing, very specifically, a topic ban. --GoodDamon 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Shutterbug is not a "series of accounts", and no one appears to be asserting that s/he has violated remedies 2 and 4 related to the inappropriate behaviour that arbcom found occurred at the time. All the Checkuser evidence posted by Spidern below was available to arbcom then. They came to their findings and remedies. I agree that Shutterbug should not have engaged in an edit-war (remedy 7), but as far as I am concerned, that is all s/he has to answer for. Jayen466 17:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. The 1st of your examples is POV pushing, fine.
  2. The 2nd edit I might have agreed with.
  3. The third is POV, but debatable.
  4. The fourth I would have agreed with: I would consider it POV pushing to include the information concerned in such a short lede. (Note that the information was moved to the main part of the article, not deleted.)
  5. The fifth edit seems to have been a change in the order of paragraphs. How is it POV-pushing?
  6. The sixth edit is sourced. It leans towards POV pushing, but is also a reaction to the other side's insistence on including this specific material in the lede.
  7. The seventh edit kind of makes sense, given that this is the article on Scientology, i.e. a religion or ideology, and not an organizaton.
  8. The eigth edit, while not ideal, tries to correct an existing imbalance. (Many courts and governments have taken a different view than the one described.)
  9. The ninth edit, again, while not ideal, tries to correct an existing imbalance.
  10. The tenth edit claims is a blog. While it looks like one, it isn't: Condé Nast Portfolio. The edit was inappropriate.
As for the assumption of good or bad faith, I think both sides could profitably make efforts in this respect. I have also looked at your examples where you say reliably sourced information was removed:
  1. Concerning the first example of "removal of reliable sources", first off, part of the material was unsourced. As for the part that was sourced, I am reminded of your comment the other day at RS/N: "Does the US army specialize in studying NRMs? Quoted directly from WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." This was concerning a publication by the U.S. Army Chaplain's Office, which I believe would be far better qualified to pronounce on theological issues than a couple of LA Times staff writers. Yet while you want to disallow the US Army Manual, here you argue that the LA Times is a reliable source for theological questions and should not have been removed. Scholarly sources discussing space opera are available, I posted one of them on the talk page the other day. Not one of them is used at the moment, none ever has been used in the article as far as I know.
  2. As for your second example, I agree with the edit, or at least I agree that there was and is a situation that needs addressing. I made a related proposal on the talk page the other day.
  3. Your third example represents a clear improvement of the article. It does not remove any reliably sourced information at all, it simply brings things into their appropriate chronological sequence.
I wish editors would learn to work with each other in these articles, and concentrate on finding and reflecting the best and most reliable sources. Scholarly sources are woefully underrepresented, with the most hostile scholar, Kent, vastly overrepresented in comparison to his real-life standing. The article has languished at C-class for ages. It is not our task to reflect the coverage of Scientology as given in Operation Clambake, we are supposed to reflect the most high-quality sources out there. So far, there has been too little effort invested in that direction. And I doubt that getting rid of Scientologist editors will make things better. Jayen466 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this was never about "getting rid of Scientologist editors". There is demonstrated evidence that the parties listed above cooperated in some fashion in order to push a certain POV, which is favorable of their organization. I will argue that moving content around on the page is indeed quite indicative of a POV, if the information moved could be interpreted to be detrimental to the public image of the organization (i.e. well-sourced, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I have absolutely no quarrel with a Scientologist (or anyone, for that matter) who makes well-sourced contributions to any page. In fact, before this fiasco erupted we were in discussion of good Scholarly sources to be added to the article (you'll notice that I re-added a source which was lost in the edit war). The problem is that material which was sourced was removed in certain cases.
It's difficult to assume good faith when editors oppose the consensus of a page without prior discussion in order to push a POV. The evidence presented above (overlapping IP usage) is indicative of orchestrated COI, and a great cause for concern. The religious choice of the editors in question have no bearing on the discussion for a topic ban here. This is no different than calling into question edits made by employees of Microsoft making contributions to Windows Vista. Spidern 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Even though some editors have only now discovered the arbcom case, it is old history. Arbcom dealt with it last year, and allowed Shutterbug to continue editing. Remedies are in place and on the whole adhered to. What happened then has little to do with the present situation at the article. I appreciate it is difficult to assume good faith, but try it nonetheless. Criticise Shutterbug for her edits, and not for who s/he is or what s/he is alleged to have done last year. (Btw, I had noted and appreciated that you restored the ref. Thanx.) Jayen466 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Several users have already reviewed the evidence and made good cases for this block. I agree with points made by Fut.Perf., GoodDamon, Cirt, Zaharous, and Durova. There is no problem with single-topic editors, but SPAs that cannot edit with the neutral point of view have caused problems time and again. This is a typical case. If this were a newer user then more guidance might get results but this is a longtime user who's already been through dispute resolution. Even with all of the Scientology and related article off limits there are still 2 million other pages to edit, so this is a mild prohibition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Inappropriate activity is evident. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Evidently the public burning of a minority editor w/o any reflection of the NPOV-problems and purposes of other prolific editors like [[35]] who had no edits not related to Scientology, or [[36]] who is only a little bit better. I am not advocating to topic ban all of them. But I see that this turns into a witch hunt and that is what Wikipedia is NOT. Shrampes (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not a "public burning" of anyone. Shutterbug and several other accounts appear to have edited on behalf of the Church of Scientology, from Church of Scientology-controlled IP addresses. This is inappropriate behavior, and merits a topic-ban. --GoodDamon 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This was more than a year ago and subject of a closed ArbCom decision. Also, do we know if Shutterbug is still a member? If he had left the Church his edits would be ok, right? Shrampes (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how membership in the Church is in any way an issue. Catholics, for instance, are perfectly welcome to edit the page on Catholicism. Personally, I wish Shutterbug the best in whatever his/her beliefs are. The problem lies not with those beliefs, but with editing from Church-owned IP addresses that it turns out are unlikely to be proxies. That would be a WP:COI, and evidence of WP:ROLE accounts. Why would Shutterbug's beliefs have any bearing? --GoodDamon 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be what you are saying. Shutterbug is not allowed to edit scientology articles because he is suspected to be a scientologist with an inherent conflict of interest that is impossible to heal. Shrampes (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that is distinctly and vehemently not what I am saying. You are arguing against a straw man, and attributing to me a position I do not hold. I ask that you retract your comment. Shutterbug's beliefs are his/her own, and are not the topic of discussion here. Let me make myself abundantly clear: This is about the likelihood that Shutterbug and other editors have edited on behalf of an organization as WP:ROLE accounts. I take strong umbrage with your mis-characterization of my arguments and again ask that you retract your comment. --GoodDamon 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again, this is not merely about the persecution or hunting down of anyone. What we have here is corroborated effort to specifically push a POV which paints the Church of Scientology in a favorable light, coming in two cases ( and from IPs which belong to the organization in question. Had the original arbitration decision actually dealt with the issue, we would not be here discussing it. I will admit that many (not all) of my edits have been Scientology-related recently, but please point out an edit of mine that did not strive for an NPOV representation of the subject matter. I once again remind you that we are dealing here with not a discriminatory ban, nor is it a ban from Wikipedia altogether (as Will Beback pointed out). Spidern 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at your edit history I am not surprised that you say that. Without Shutterbug you had more time editing and less challenge of you own point of view. So let's get rid of him. Shrampes (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - striking my vote, and a suggestion to previously involved editors

Due to the Arbitration Committee decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, "All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation." According to Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Types_of_sanctions: Article probation : Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.

After thinking this over and looking at these above pages I think it is best if this Topic Ban poll relating to Shutterbug and related accounts takes place among NPOV, previously uninvolved administrators. Specifically: From WP:BAN -- The Arbitration Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user, such as by authorizing discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator. I could be seen myself as being previously involved on Scientology articles, and so I am striking my vote in the Topic Ban proposal. I suggest other editors previously involved on Scientology-related articles do the same, including GoodDamon [37], Justallofthem [38], Jayen466 [39], Zaharous [40], Bravehartbear [41], Spidern [42], and Shrampes [43][44][45][46]. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I never voted here to begin with due to of my heavy involvement with Scientology-related articles as of late. I suggest that the initiator of the topic ban proposal would withdraw it here and reopen it with the intention of receiving feedback from non-involved users, with a link to our archived discussion here for evaluation purposes. I would also suggest that we initiate a request for comment to bring about the consensus of non-involved users. Spidern 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, I completely concur. As stated above, I am happy to defer to outside administrative perspective. Considering this is a discussion that may result in a significant topic-ban, it's appropriate for those of us who have otherwise been involved to let others hash it out. I will continue to argue my position, but I would prefer my arguments be reviewed for their merits, rather than my "vote". --GoodDamon 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, purely for organizational purposes, if previous editors at the Scientology pages will all agree to strike their !votes here, I suggest archiving the above discussions and continuing with the refined proposals below. --GoodDamon 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, the section contains some relevant diffs and arguments. Jayen466 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my poor choice of words. I don't propose to template-close it, I mean merely to get things better organized for !voting and review by outside administrators. --GoodDamon 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If you also remove those !voters who, while not direct participants in this conflict, have a long prior history with one or more editors here, then I believe there is at the most one "uninvolved" editor left. :-) Jayen466 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not disagree, but I could find no recent diffs in the last few months on Scientology-related articles for the others that commented above. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Current topic ban proposal (previously uninvolved admins only)[edit]

Hi. As the person who originally proposed the topic ban, I stand behind my proposal. The basic concern is that someone is an SPA who is pushing a POV. They're probably trying their best to contribute, but may be falling afoul. So I suggest a slight modification:

  • Indefinite topic ban from any Scientology-related articles, including Scientology-related sections in other articles, to be construed broadly
  • After three months, contribs to be reviewed by some completely uninvolved admins. If the user has shown strong contributions in other areas, topic ban to be lifted. Otherwise revisit three months after that. At that point, it'll be obvious whether or not they are contributing to the project or furthering an agenda.

Thoughts? // roux   editor review 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted in my view. Some of Shutterbug's edits were good, others not more POV than those of other editors with an opposite bias. A stern, and FINAL warning not to violate 3RR suffices, perhaps plus restriction to the talk page of any Scientology-related articles for a limited period. Plus the aforementioned trout slapping for GoodDamon for his part in the edit war. Jayen466 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I called for some help here. We will see what happens. Shrampes (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:BAN, let's please keep further comments in this subsection relating to the Topic Ban Proposal to previously uninvolved administrators. Others may comment in the above subsections. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute[edit]

This was the section explaining I had originally brought this up in the wrong place. Leaving it for posterity, but closing it to avoid distraction.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You're in the wrong forum, guys. The topic of Scientology is on article probation. From Wikipedia:General sanctions:

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation.

So I'm marking this thread resolved and referring it to WP:AE. DurovaCharge! 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I opened this as an incident report, because the evidence indicates a very large WP:COI issue with probable WP:SOCK and WP:ROLE problems as well, not because of a content dispute. However, I will abide by your wishes in this matter and move this report there. May I have your permission to copy it verbatim, including responses, to avoid extra work for all parties involved? --GoodDamon 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You appear to misunderstand the quoted definition. Nowhere does it restrict itself to content policies only. Nor do you need my permission to quote what I post. See gnu free documentation license. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Guhh... Sorry, I apparently overdosed on stupid this morning. Proceeding... --GoodDamon 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


I have requested a new arbitration case. DurovaCharge! 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate editing by User:Cirt on Scientology pages[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This matter has been accepted for arbitration. Jehochman Talk 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In just the last few days editing in the Scientology-series alongside User:Cirt I have seen a disturbing amount of POV-motivated editing on his part. As you may know, Cirt has quite a history here with seven (7) prior blocks for edit-warring and other POV issues. That history was whitewashed with a name change and Cirt managed to become an admin in his somewhat disputed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt. Although I had hopes that adminship would help Cirt reform, I fear now that that is not the case. Here is just a few issues that I have noticed recently that indicate that Cirt is not able to control his POV:

Misrepresenting tabloid material (of all things)[edit]

The below was my first clue that Cirt was still editing from his anti-Scientology POV and was not to be trusted unsupervised. He added this material here. This material is an utterly WP:OR misrepresentation of tabloid material that was, in itself, questionable to start with:

In 2007, New Idea reported that Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples looking to educate themselves to have "better sex".[47] This guide studies their sex life and suggests ways for the couple to improve upon their activities. The article, titled: "Scientology Sex Scandal", which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, was one of the more notable headlines in Australian celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007.[48]

Let's count the POV-driven errors:
  1. The source article is MAGWATCH, which appears to be a column about gossip mags. This article is entitled "A ring of truth, but only about the lies (emphasis added)" which should give any editor pause before quoting from it.
  2. Here is what it says:

    New Idea announces Tom and Katie's "scientology sex scandal". For some bizarre reason, the couple are reportedly taking "sex lessons" so they can learn to have "better sex". "Tom and Katie will have to share every detail of their sex life with an adviser, 'an intimate relationship guide', who will analyse their lovemaking and suggest improvements."

    So this is clearly about Tom and Kate, not about Scientology in general. Yet the editor here engaged in WP:OR generalization to invent that "Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples".
  3. Now seeing as we now do that the bit is about Tom and Kate, a responsible editor might want to consider WP:BLP and think carefully about the quality of the sourcing.
  4. Finally, a responsible editor might want to see if there is any other reliable source that mentions Scientologists taking "sex lessons". There is not and there are no such in Scientology. So an editor here just used terrible sourcing and outright original opinion to create a fiction about Scientology.
  5. Oh, and calling it "one of the more notable headlines" is a definite reach. The article simply calls it one of "a slew of blaring headlines" about Katie that indicate that she is popular fodder for the gossip mags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justallofthem (talkcontribs)

See discussion from Talk:Scientology and sex. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) supported Justallofthem (talk · contribs)'s position. The next proper step in dispute resolution would be to either: 1) Question the sources at WP:RSN, or 2) Start a content-based WP:RFC on that particular content disputed. I chose to disengage from this particular material and take a break from editing this article entirely. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

One-sided approach to the validity of sources[edit]

My experience with Cirt is that he, like most critics of Scientology, operates by the rule "Scientologists lie, Scientology critics tell the truth". He is welcome to believe that but realize please that is a totally POV stance. Someone from the Scientology side with an equally inflexible POV would say the exact opposite. I refer specifically to Cirt unbalanced treatment of two roughly analogous sources, a Scientologist's site and a critic's site. I brought up that issue at Talk:Scientology and sex:

Lermanet vs. Scientologymyths - Different exactly how?

The DeWolf affidavit was previously linked to ( here to a site that has been reported as an "attack site" as in malware of some sort. I do not believe the malware report was on the specific file(s) in question but rather on the site overall, (incidentally, I just checked and it seems fine now). Cirt removed the link, here, citing "rm sources which link to attack site, dubious site anyways". I agree with that on both counts. For the sake of our discussion here I performed a Google search and found the document on the site. Cirt said of that site "But these particular sites being linked to are dubious, and written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes. Not reliable sites, not even safe sites." When Jayen brought up the analogous Lerma site, Cirt's comment was "Ref 8 is not an "attack site", though it is self-published. Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN, however." I want to compare these site and Cirt's analysis of each. To me they are exactly analogous and I find Cirt's reluctance to deal with them equivalently disturbing and again indicative of an overpowering POV issue.

  1. Cirt alludes that the Scientologymyths site is "not even safe". This is flatly untrue. The freewebtown site was listed as unsafe yesterday but seems OK now. Scientologymyths is not an unsafe site.
  2. Cite says that Scientologymyths is "written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes". What proof does he have of that claim that he presents so boldly as an accomplished fact?
  3. And finally my main concern. Cirt see ScientologyMyths archives of primary material deserving of summary removal as "dubious" yet thinks the same sort of material on Lerma "Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN" but meanwhile I guess it remains in the article. This is disturbing to me. Arnaldo Lerma is a known enemy of Scientology. My challenge to Cirt, or anyone for that matter, is to show why the Lerma site should be treated any differently than the ScientologyMyths site. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I admit I framed this discussion incorrectly and for this I apologize. What I should have done is discuss the nature of the website itself as a source. purports to be someone's personal blog, and as such should not be considered a WP:RS. If discussion could not reach a resolution on the article's talk page, I should have posted to WP:RSN to get further input on that particular source. That way, we could get more fresh eyes on the discussion. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spammed "Warning"[edit]

Cirt is making unsubstantiated claims about the site. Cirt has made a number of unsubstantiated claims about this site so as to undermine its credibility and has spammed his "warning" across multiple talk pages. As far as I am aware, Cirt has never done anything like this with a site critical of Scientology; this is clearly POV-motivated. I ask Cirt to back his claims up or remove the "warning". He has stated the following about the Scientologymyths site:

  1. written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes (diff)
  2. scientologymyths site is run by the same organization that runs the religiousfreedomwatch attack site. (diff)
  3. is run by the same organization (diff) Organization?

Cirt has ignored my previous requests to source those sort of statements and instead has spammed this unsubstantiated "warning" on (at least) the below talk pages:

Scientologymyths does not present itself as an official voice of the Church, please see here:

"I am a Scientologist, working, and I use my spare time to run this blog and the website I live in Los Angeles, California/USA."

Cirt appears to be trying to tar the site. I asked that he provide a source or remove the warnings but he did not do so, instead repeating his unsubstantiated claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justallofthem (talkcontribs)

I was a bit too aggressive with this one with the talk page warnings. Same with the comment in the above subsection, I should have engaged in further discussion on the talk page of the reliability (or not) of the blog/website, and if we could not reach an amicable discussion post to WP:RSN for fresh eyes. Also, it probably would have been better for both me and Justallofthem (talk · contribs) to discuss one source/website at a time, and not conflate different websites/sources in the discussion at the same time. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


I find Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup of concern and will comment later as I just saw it and need to read through it more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justallofthem (talkcontribs)


I will defer to the proper process for the outcome of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup. There has been some good discussion at the case page so far, but as is appropriate I will defer to an uninvolved administrator to reach a conclusion in that case. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive checkuser fishing and misrepresentation[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. No evidence is presented other than vaque supposition. Also Cirt consistently misrepresents the findings of the COFS arbitration with his conjoined "Shutterbug/Misou" and his prior (rude) reference to Shutterbug as Church of Scientology (which I objected to here and which was my entrance point on realizing that Cirt had perhaps not reformed after all). There were no findings that which gave any official status to Shutterbug or established any connection between COFS and Misou other than that they accessed the same proxy server. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion and recommendation[edit]

While all of these indicate a POV, none of them alone is worthy of much in the way of sanction. Taken together however and indicative of a pattern of editing, especially as they cover just a few days editing, I believe they are cause for concern. Cirt should minimally be strongly cautioned about maintaining WP:NPOV in the Scientology articles. Personally, I am sorry to say that I do not believe he can, especially given his previous editing history under prior accounts. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


I have responded to the individual issues above in separate responses. I admit and apologize for making a mistake about the nature in which I discussed the site, and in the future will continue to utilize the WP:RFC and WP:RSN processes where appropriate in order to bring in some input from previously uninvolved editors. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by mentioned-in-small-type Durova[edit]

Hi, I don't follow the Scientology articles very much (bored to tears by the subject), but Cirt does ask me about WP policy and process from time to time. He happened to be asking me about the post he had made on some talk pages while Justa started this thread. I really wish he'd touched bases before the fact, but sometimes that's how it goes.

Now what happened is this: Cirt noticed several articles on that topic had links to a site that carried malware. Cirt posted to an admin noticeboard about that, citing several reports that the site had a malware problem. Meta then blacklisted the domain. So far, so good.

Then Cirt made a good faith mistake, noting that domain properly plus another one at a few talk pages. He saw objections to both, and from the little I've been able to glean so far those objections are unrelated. The second domain is a blog and I'm unaware whether that blog is an official one or an amateur one. If the blog is official then per WP:RS it would be acceptable in limited ways as a self-published source. If not, then it probably wouldn't satisfy the reliable sources guideline.

I was advising Cirt to extend apologies for the confusion and offer to discuss the blog with Justa when this thread opened. It looks like possibly a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard, not for arbitration enforcement. A tense subject, and probably one in which all disputing parties could use a nice cup of tea. I only regret I didn't learn about what was developing a little sooner; was reviewing GA nominees while this was brewing. Best wishes all, DurovaCharge! 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Small type mention has since been removed.[49] Thank you, Justa. Let's get things on track with a discussion of the blog? I don't think this thread is needed and would gladly close it amicably with your agreement. DurovaCharge! 22:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDamon[edit]

I'm genuinely sorry to see this. I can summarize the majority of sourcing problems with the Scientology series with a single Wikilink: WP:PRIMARY. This series of articles is rife with primary sources, and Cirt has been making some good headway in getting rid of them, along with other editors. Of course he's not a perfect editor, but contrary to Justanother's cherry-picked -- and frankly inaccurately described -- edits, Cirt has been pushing for better sources. This ArbCom report sadly strikes me as an attempt to distract from the other one and say something along the lines of "See? Both sides are bad," which is why I'm sad to see it.

I propose that this report should be placed on hold until the other one concerning Scientology is dealt with. The two are not equal. One is a report of massive conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, and likely WP:ROLE accounts from the primary organization supporting Scientology itself, and the other is an issue of WP:WEIGHT and sourcing. The latter could be resolved by explaining to Cirt why Tom Cruise's sex life is not of sufficient weight for inclusion in an article. The former... well obviously, that's a substantially bigger deal. --GoodDamon 22:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears there is consensus at the administrative level for closing this report. Perhaps a closure template should be applied? --GoodDamon 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No hurry. There is hardly any comment here from uninvolved administrators, Jehochman hardly being "uninvolved" as he has involved himself in this issue for quite some time. Nothing wrong with that but I would like some new eyeballs on this. Also, I just stumbled across another disturbing series of actions of Cirt's part including an issue involving his use of the admin bits. I plan on adding it tonight. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you absolutely sure you want to continue pursuing this right now, instead of waiting until the other report is settled? I'll say it again: This one just looks like an attempt to distract from the other one. I'm not saying it is, but that is what it looks like. There's nothing wrong with labeling the discussion archived for the time being, and then coming back to it when the other one is dealt with. --GoodDamon 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The two cases are unrelated. This is a result of my recent attempts to edit in good-faith alongside Cirt and reflect what I have observed. It has nothing to do with the issue you raised below and I do not even get into any of Cirt's activity in reference to that. These calls to table this are unmerited and seem to me to be little more than efforts to protect Cirt from valid criticism; unmerited especially given Cirt's terrible history here and professed "reformation". --Justallofthem (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I can understand how you feel, but after statements such as Jehochman's, I don't see a need to involve myself further in this one, and suspect an admin will eventually close it with an admonition to pursue content dispute resolution first from now on. --GoodDamon 17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by NE2[edit]

Google's probably-overbroad labeling of the site - a free webhosting service - as malware, and even the reliability of the scan - are red herrings. The only issue there is whether the affidavit itself is a valid source; the scan was a convenience link. I have no idea whether or not it is, so I will refrain from commenting on that, but the supposed malware is not relevant. --NE2 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466[edit]

The other day, I began to prepare an AE report on Cirt myself. At the time, I decided not to post it. Since the matter has come here now anyway, I shall add what I compiled. In part, it may duplicate what Justallofthem posted above. This is what I had drafted:

As the unrelated discussion further below shows, Scientology articles often appear like a POV-driven battlefield. Strong feelings about Scientology are commonplace, especially on the Internet, and I believe this is reflected to some extent in all work on Scientology articles within Wikipedia.

A situation has arisen in one of the minor Scientology articles, Scientology and sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which seems somehow symptomatic. Until recently, when it was nominated for deletion, the article was based mostly on primary sources: [50] Over the course of the AfD, a number of secondary sources were added, resulting in this version: [51], which was kept.

All Scientology articles are under probation, meaning that editors are required to pay particular heed to content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc. Several of the added sources appeared problematic, but there are two edits I would like uninvolved admins to look at specifically from the viewpoint of whether these edits reflect the especial mindfulness of NPOV and other policies invoked by article probation.

Use of "Scientology Sex Scandal", an article in a celebrity weekly, as a source on the position of sex in the Scientology religion[edit]

This concerns a paragraph that was added around the time of the AfD. As it turned out, our wording misrepresented the source. Our article claimed that it was "reported that Scientology has 'sex lessons' which can be given to couples", while the actual source did not make a statement about the Scientology religion, but merely quoted a report that two prominent Scientologists had used the services of an "intimate relationship guide".

Given this discrepancy, the content of the para was removed from the article (twice, with one intervening revert) and transferred to the talk page by Justallofthem (talk · contribs), where it is currently the subject of further discussion.

Diffs: [52] / [53] / [54] / [55] (rmv by Justallofthem) / [56] (rvt by Cirt) / [57] (rmv again by Jayen466) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayen466 (talkcontribs)


To reiterate what I had said above, there was a disagreement between myself and Justallofthem (talk · contribs) about this material used in the article Scientology and sex. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) shares the opinion of Justallofthem on this issue. It was discussed a bit on the talk page. The next step would either have been to have a content-based WP:RFC on the issue on the article's talk page in order to solicit input from uninvolved editors on the matter, or to have a discussion at WP:RSN about the article content, in order to solicit input from uninvolved editors about the particular sources used and their reliability in general. The matter has not proceeded to either of those stages yet, and I have chosen to disengage myself from this particular discussion and take a break from it for a while. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of a quote box[edit]

"In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex."

L. Ron Hubbard's son Ron DeWolfe[1]

I would like to ask uninvolved admins to examine the appropriateness of the insertion of the quote box shown to the right here. This insertion occurred immediately after the removal of the abovementioned para from the Australian gossip weekly. For background, the statement cited was

  1. made by Hubbard's estranged son;
  2. originally published in Penthouse, a men's magazine;
  3. later retracted;
  4. cited to a source that remains unpublished in many English-speaking countries, as it risks falling foul of their libel laws
  5. unrepresentative of prominent viewpoints on what Scientology focuses on, as published in the most reliable sources.

There has been subsequent discussion of this material.

The question is, are these edits evidence of especial mindfulness to uphold best practice in relation to content policies such as NPOV, RS, etc. I may add further evidence tomorrow or Monday; there are one or two other recent incidents I recall. If any of the diff links above don't point where they should, please point it out; I haven't had time to double-check all of them. Jayen466 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I added a quote box to a subsection of an article. It was removed and a discussion ensued on the article's talk page. Again, I have chosen to disengage from this and take a break from it for a while. There is no ongoing dispute here, and so far the matter has not proceeded to RFC either. The quote box was removed by Jayen466 after being in the article a total of 13 minutes, and was not added back in since, by myself or anyone else. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


This dispute about a quote box was entirely unknown to me. It's more than a bit disappointing to discover new points of contention in dribs and drabs this way. Normally I'd suggest a content RFC for a quote box dispute. With so many other unresolved issues already on noticeboards, though, a general suggestion to both sides: in dispute resolution generally (on wiki or off), an effective way to escalate tension and halt progress is to introduce new low priority quarrels while multiple higher priority ones remain unresolved. This is approaching a level where it threatens to overwhelm our site dispute resolution mechanisms (if it hasn't reached that point already unbeknownst to me). So to editors on both sides of the fence, whatever your disagreements may be, I hope we can all stand together in not wanting a second arbitration case. The last one on this subject lasted three months.

So here's a proposal: please table the discussions on the quote box and the blog for 30 days. Wherever things are now, just walk away until the new year. Let the other issues with the prior AE thread etc. get wrapped up first, please. Then address this lower priority material. DurovaCharge! 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning of an IP contributor[edit]

IP makes a good-faith edit, with a lucid edit summary drawing attention to a valid concern. The edit is reverted by another user, and the IP receives this warning from Cirt. Jayen466 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to the inclusion of scholarly sources in articles related to Scientology[edit]

This edit added a paragraph sourced to a book by James R. Lewis, a highly acclaimed academic author published by leading university presses, to the article on the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). Going against the grain of the rest of the article as it was then (mainly authored by Cirt), it states that the New CAN, which is run with Scientology backing, operates as a “genuine information and networking center on non-traditional religions”.

Cirt removed this information with the edit summary: “(removed added text from Lewis book - it is basically a copyright violation - minor words are changed but whole sections are quoted without quotations!!!)”

For editors wanting to assess the validity of Cirt's copyvio claim – which I would take issue with, since the author and work were named, and my summary reformulated the source text – the relevant page of Lewis is available in google books: [58] If Cirt had had a genuine copyright concern, I suggest that the appropriate response showing especial mindfulness of NPOV would have been to reword the text, ensuring that this significant scholarly voice offering an alternative viewpoint be included. Instead, Cirt deleted it. It is also noteworthy that the version of the article at the time, which Cirt submitted for GA (it failed), cited no criticism whatsoever of the Old CAN, prior to its Scientology take-over, even though there have been a great many voices critical of the Old CAN in both the academic literature and mainstream media.

Cirt has several times tried to exclude Anson Shupe as a reliable source from WP articles related to Scientology, describing him as a “collaborator”. [59] [60] [61] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayen466 (talkcontribs)


I did indeed alert in an edit summary about copyvio concerns from text inserted by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), and this was a valid concern. The Diff cited by Jayen466 is from almost 6 months ago. I believe Jayen466 ended up rewording the text later himself, and a version of it remains in the article. The fact that I nominated something to WP:GAN which failed is simply a testament to my dedication to relying on the GA Review process itself. Actually I later utilized many points from the GA Review to copyedit and improve on the article based on the GA Reviewer's suggestions. And yes, I do question Anson Shupe's collaboration with Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon, and you will note that the Diffs cited by Jayen466 are each: on talk pages, not article-space, where I brought the concern up for discussion, and: over two months old, and have not been brought up again by myself for some time. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Skewed assessment of sources based on POV, rather than reliability, in articles related to Scientology[edit]

As GoodDamon has pointed out, Cirt has argued that Scientology’s primary sources (websites, Hubbard’s books) should not be used in Scientology-related articles. I agree with Cirt on this point, and have said so before: [62]. Our descriptions of Scientology beliefs should be based on scholarly descriptions, or other sources that can be considered reliable sources on religious matters.

However, Cirt’s actual approach is selective, depending on whether Scientology sources are likely to paint the religion in a good or a bad light. There are also contradictions between Cirt's statements in public and her or his actual editing actions. For example, in the AfD for Scientology and Sex, Cirt said that content sourced to primary sources should be “pruned”. [63] When some time later I brought the matter up on the article’s talk page, Cirt was extremely reluctant to remove any of the primary-source material at all: [64]

Cirt not only defended the use of primary sources likely to cast a negative light on the religion, he also defended the use of a self-published piece on an anti-Scientology website, saying the site was “not an attack site”: [65] The site’s title is “Exposing the con”: [66] Scholarly opinion of such sites is that they are a propaganda effort presenting a caricature of Scientology, rather than reliable information. [67][68]

To summarize:

  • Cirt seeks to exclude Scientology primary sources where they might serve to portray Scientology in a favourable light.
  • Cirt seeks to include Scientology primary sources where they might serve to portray Scientology in an unfavourable light.
  • Cirt defends the use as WP:RS of self-published attack sites and poor sources (such as men's magazines, celebrity gossip weeklies and publications with known libel issues), where they can serve to portray Scientology in an unfavourable light.
  • Cirt seeks to exclude scholarly sources, usually considered the most reliable in Wikipedia, where they have written favourably about Scientology, or have demonstrated a descriptive and non-judgmental attitude towards this religion.
  • Cirt uses a variety of argumentative approaches to accomplish these aims, and Cirt's statements in public often do not match his or her actual behaviour.

I do not see especial mindfulness of NPOV here. I do not even see a good-faith effort towards NPOV. I see an extremely dedicated effort to subvert NPOV that is unparalleled by anything else I have observed in Wikipedia. Jayen466 13:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE is not a replacement for ordinary dispute resolution surrounding content disputes. Is there any evidence that ordinary DR has been attempted and frustrated by behavioral problems. To my eye this entire thread looks like it was started as axe grinding by an editor against a content opponent. Jayen466, to what extent are you familiar with the history of this dispute, one which stretches back to May 2007 and before? Jehochman Talk 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across the arbcom case a good few months ago and read up on it. Around the same time I left a message on Talk:Scientology that we should not be citing primary sources. [69] A few weeks ago, Spidern (talk · contribs) notified me on my talk page that he had reworked the Scientology article, removing a lot of this inappropriately sourced material. On reviewing the article then, I noticed that after x years of work by many capable editors, still almost none of the relevant scholarly publications in the field were cited (I gave a partial list of suitable references here). When I saw Cirt, who has made tens of thousands of edits on Scientology-related topics, inserting a quote box that read like a tabloid headline, citing Penthouse and a reference to an article in some Australian celebrity gossip mag, I felt concerned enough to draft an AE report, even though in the end I did not post it. But when I saw Justallofthem post almost exactly the same concerns here, I felt compelled to back him up. In my perception, what Justallofthem drew attention to is not a made-up thing posted out of personal spite, but a valid concern about an, in my eyes, glaringly obvious failure to stick to NPOV editing – which I have recently concluded Cirt is simply incapable of, given his or her evidently very strong feelings on the matter.
Scientology has been a recognized religion in the United States for 15 years. The U.S. State Department regularly criticises the few remaining major countries who have so far failed to recognise it as such. In my opinion, it is time that we too treated Scientology like a religion, giving it the same respect we accord any other faith. Editors who cannot do that, but instead appear to edit from an overpowering POV that prevents them from including at least some opposing viewpoints, should not work on these articles. Jayen466 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Before bringing a report to AE, I recommend discussing concerns with the editor in question to see whether they are willing to voluntarily change their behavior. Have you discussed your concerns with Cirt? Jehochman Talk 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please review the evidence provided. Cirt and I discussed these matters, and from the exchanges we had, including this one: [70] [71] [72] [73] I concluded that any further assumption of good faith in this particular topic area was misplaced. Cirt and I have collaborated and had perfectly amicable discussions elsewhere before, and hopefully will do so again. Cirt is a truly talented writer, and a tremendous researcher. But exactly because Cirt is such a great researcher: Why is it that I have never seen Cirt cite a source that is sympathetic to the Church of Scientology, or critical of the moral panic surrounding it? They are not that hard to find! Instead, we have had literally tens of thousands of edits contributing negative material about Scientology and individual Scientologists, mostly from press sources, and some distinctly at the lower end of the spectrum, as demonstrated by the diffs here.
But coming back to the matter of discussion between Cirt and myself, if someone says in an AfD they are in favour of pruning primary-source content, and a week later, nothing of the sort having happened, you ask them politely if they would like to do it, or if it were alright if you did what they had advocated, and you get that in response, then the assumption of good faith becomes moot, and you conclude that your interlocutor simply says whatever they think will serve their purpose at the moment, without necessarily having any intention of doing what they said. Cheers, Jayen466 01:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In conjunction with secondary sources supplementing primary source material, I have no objection to using primary sources in a limited capacity. Note that the above Diffs cited by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) are all to talk-page discussions about article content, where constructive discussions were had. We had been (unfortunately) conflating multiple discussions about different websites together. If we had discussed each website one-at-a-time (or even later brought the matter to WP:RSN) the discussion would have had a more clear and beneficial resolution for all. So it is partly my fault for not keeping the discussion on track to one website/source at a time, and also for not opening the matter up to a noticeboard like WP:RSN to get some fresh eyes and input from uninvolved editors on the matter. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I participated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and have interacted with both Cirt and Justanother for a great length of time. I am dubious of any reports files by historical content adversaries against each other. I recommend that this lengthy report be archived and that independent editors review the content disputes and provide feedback to all parties. If that fails to resolve the problem, an editor not involved in the content dispute should come here with a succinct report requesting whatever actions may be necessary to prevent further disruption to the editing process or damage to the articles. I think recourse to our normal dispute resolution channels and noticeboards, including WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN and WP:RFC might be helpful. I have not yet seen evidence that there was a community consensus at one of those places which was then tendentiously subverted by one of the parties. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen makes good points, Jehochman2. And Jayen is one of these very nice editors and an example of sobriety and measured comments. He even got a Barnstar from .... Cirt in this regard. So, rather than dismiss this with a wave of the hand, please take a look at the evidence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman (talk · contribs) makes a good point here. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not opposed to reviewing Jayden's evidence. I recommend that this lengthy thread be closed, because it had gotten so long that nobody is going to read it all. We need to encourage participation, not scare people off with huge walls of text. If Jayden wants to post a new report, that's fine. However, I'd recommend seeing if a discussion between Jayden and Cirt might resolve concerns, since they appear to have a friendly relationship. Has that been attempted yet? Jehochman Talk 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
One reason the thread is lengthy is because it presents a lot of evidence for the uninvolved to take a look at. You know, JH, if the thread's length bothers you then you can just ignore it. Your and Durova's attempts to sweep Cirt's overpowering POV issues away serves nothing. Let the thread stand and let's see what comments are made. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Justallofthem, allow me to begin by assuring you that Jehochman and I are by no means teaming up here. I had no idea Jehochman intended to post to this thread until I read that he had, and given my scathing oppose to his recent ArbCom candidacy--well--it's gracious of him to acknowledge some merit to the position I've articulated at this discussion. Regarding Cirt's 'overpowering POV issues', I admit to being unfamiliar with many sides of the subject. So what's useful in that regard is to look at what other editors have thought of his work. Cirt has contributed a large number of good articles and featured articles on this subject. Please accept this feedback at face value: I have no intention of sweeping anything under a rug. This dispute is progressing in a manner where uninvolved administrator intervention is unlikely to occur: Jehochman saw the COFS case through arbitration and Jossi has a declared conflict of interest regarding new religious movements generally. It would be a sad thing to see a second arbitration case on the subject because if both sides simply slowed down then normal site processes ought to be able to handle this matter. But if matters continue on their present course I can and will initiate a second RFAR. DurovaCharge! 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


This seems to be an ongoing modus operandi of Cirt. He/she gets involved in behavior as documented above, only to regret it later and "disengage" or " take a break". While removing oneself from a dispute is commendable, a more a appropriate behavior would be not to engage in that silly behavior in the firt place, in particular given Cirt past multiple blocks for edit warring, and the much spoken about "turnaround". I would argue, that it is because this "new Cirt" that we are supposed to accept as an example of how bad-behaving editors can come around and become useful contributors to this project, that the burden is on Cirt to simply avoid a priori to get involved in such behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I believe I have done so. I admit that it is always best to seek out fresh eyes from uninvolved contributors to a discussion or article-improvement drive as much as possible, in such forums (as noted above) including WP:RSN and article-content WP:RFC when appropriate. It is also quite important to (try one's best) to focus article talk page discussion on the matter at hand, and on one issue at a time, to avoid muddying the waters and confusing multiple talk page discussion/threads. In some instances where I was involved in these discussions I was not quick enough to focus discussion on one issue at a time, and also to seek out advice from both experienced editors and administrators, and also to seek out input from uninvolved contributors by posting a neutral request for input on appropriate noticeboards. These are all good ideas which I always try to implement and will continue to work on in the future. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced by Jossi's arguments given his known editorial position with respect to cults. Of course he is welcome to participate just as much as anybody else, but I think that WP:AE is hardly the correct tool for resolving what appears to be a content dispute. Editors should not seek ArbCom sanctions as an extension of their content disagreements. Jehochman Talk 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, Jehochman: Look at the evidence rather than providing nothing more than an ad hominem. (For the record I have never edited articles related to the CoS, besides an article about the actor Tom Cruise, and do no intend to either). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at the evidence, but the editing histories of the editors are also relevant. What I see here is almost pure WP:BATTLE with the sides lining up along their traditional editorial positions. I'd really like to have editors with no irons in the fire look at this situation and provide thoughts. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not about cults, or the fact that Scientologists are a much-despised minority. It is about a set of articles that have been under arbcom-imposed probation for more than a year, requiring editors to uphold the highest standards with respect to content policies. I believe the above examples – more could be added – illustrating how sources have been used, and on what basis sources have been used or rejected, fall short of these standards. Jayen466 18:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what to do about it? If an editor's contributions are generally moving an article forward, it is counter-productive to ban them. Additionally, WP:AE is a very blunt tool for resolving disagreements. I think that some of our more subtle tools, such as WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:RFC might be better suited to resolving the problems you've identified. Editors are not expected to be perfect. We are not going to ban somebody for occasional mistakes when the bulk of their work in a particular area is good, at least not without giving them feedback and seeing if they adjust their editing to take a better form. Jehochman Talk 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what to do about it? Given the problems identified, don't you think a warning about NPOV editing and sourcing would be in order? That way, if there are similar problems six months down the line, there will be a record that we have been here before. Cheers, Jayen466 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You are heavily involved in editing a series of controversial topics where Cirt is also involved. To me your request for sanctions appears to represent the escalation of a content dispute. Given the intense spins that have been put on these articles by single purpose accounts, I think Cirt has overall done a good job trying to restore neutrality. It is unfair to hold them to a standard of perfection. I recommend you use dispute resolution to resolve matters. Further lobbying here for arbitration sanctions is not going to be successful. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with Jehochman's assessment of this matter. This is basically a content dispute and WP:AE is not the best forum for solving it. Some of the main contributors to this thread have longstanding disputes with Cirt regarding other New Religious Movements, which makes this appear to an effort to settle scores. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that the Scientology articles would be more NPOV if Cirt were not involved, so topic banning him while allowing pro-Scientology single-purpose accounts to keep editing would be harmful to the project. I suggest that mediation would be the process most likely to achieve a resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The current arbcom remedies include article probation. NPOV is an integral part of this. Ignoring or actively resisting the inclusion of mainstream scholarly sources such as Bryan R. Wilson, James R. Lewis, David Bromley, Anson Shupe or J. Gordon Melton, who form a staple of university syllabi in this field, while going to Penthouse and celebrity gossip weeklies for poorly sourced and salacious material is not compatible with that. I think a warning is appropriate, so that if we are here again in a few months' time, with similar diffs, we will know that we have been here before. Cheers, Jayen466 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • By the way, Will, I think the problem of single-purpose Scientologist accounts editing Scientology articles in Wikipedia is somewhat overstated. As far as I can see, there are far more dedicated anti-Scientology accounts editing here than there have ever been Scientologists. The current total of active Scientologist editors is 4 or 5, I believe. None of them is a prolific editor. And if Scientologists start misbehaving, they will in turn have to answer their critics (of which there are many) here. Btw, did you go through the evidence above? Jayen466 12:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd open a mediation request if the parties are willing? DurovaCharge! 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Without any intention of preventing non-sanction resolution of this situation, WJBScribe (current chair of Medcom) recently reminded us on this page that mediation is an entirely voluntary process and that should not be used as either a carrot or a stick in relation to user behaviour. Results of mediation are not normally available for public viewing, in order to support the mediation process. Please use caution in recommending mediation as an adjunct or alternative to action on this noticeboard. Risker (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder. It's rather difficult to know what to do about a situation that had been relatively stable for over a year and then undergoes an unexpected escalation. Will bear your advice in mind. DurovaCharge! 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt[edit]

I apologize for any inadvertent confusion that has been caused by my recent actions, and I accept the wise advice given above to table these new issues until the old ones are resolved. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I have requested a new arbitration case. DurovaCharge! 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like de ja vu all over again. Jehochman Talk 18:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Capasitor (talk · contribs) has been edit warring and making POV edits in Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles for quite some time now. He often undid edits of other people without any explanation or called their edits "vandalism": [74] [75] Eventually he was blocked for 1 week for this racist comment about other editors: [76] However I have a reason to believe that it is unlikely that this user will change his approach to AA related topics, when he is back from his block. Amended Remedies and and enforcement provisions of the arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 hold that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". [77] I would like to ask the admins to consider placing this editor on supervised editing, which involves revert and civility paroles. Grandmaster (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I will watch his contribs when the block expires. --Brand спойт 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted. A week's block is enough for now. If he continues with unprofessional editing when the block expires we can think about paroles/limitations etc. Again, this thread can probably be archived now. Moreschi (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


And another disruptive editor on Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles, which are covered by Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case. AcademicSharp (talk · contribs) contributes both as a registered and anonymous user (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He makes massive rewrites of the highly controversial article Khojaly Massacre, citing no sources whatsoever, and yesterday came close to violating 3RR. [78] [79] [80] Since he was a newbie, I warned him [81] [82], but today he resumed edit warring: [83] Note that this user provides no edit summaries and ignores the talk page, where he was repeatedly invited to discuss his edits: [84] Urgent admin intervention is required. Grandmaster (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another 2 reverts by this user: [85] [86] No sources cited, and talk page ignored. Grandmaster (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And now we have Dramafree (talk · contribs), an obvious SPA, reverting the same article: [87] Grandmaster (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by William M. Connolley for 24 h: [88] Grandmaster (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Can be archived now, this has been dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Abract - Alastair Haines[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom Motion: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines#Motion_re_Abtract
Abtract's response, subsequent revert and Rlevse's advice to Alastair
Abtract's prior actions at page 28 November 2008, 25 November 2008 and 23 November 2008
Deletions and reversions without using talk page, as noted by third party.
Alastair Haines (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Shame on you Haines; I thought you had more spunk than that! Abtract (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a rather cut and dry violation by Abtract- Abtract's tone in the above comment alone deserves a harsh trouting. Anyone have something they want to say?--Tznkai (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I could but I can't really as I am not impartial, still looks pretty obvious to me, as does the egging on comment above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Abract has been blocked for eight days.--Tznkai (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out that Abtract had previously edited on that article, and the conditions were: "such as by editing [...] pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited". Additionally, the motion urged Alastair to avoid interaction with Abtract, but the former immediately reverted on an issue that the two of them had previously clashed on ([90], [91]). This isn't an instance of stalking, it's a continuation of a prior dispute. While I agree that Abtract's attitude above is unhelpful, I do not think this is as "cut and dry" as you suggest. Ilkali (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is that technicality, however, Abtract's behavior here was pretty clearly inappropriate and he doesn't seem to be taking the hint that this needs to stop, entirely. I support Tznkai's actions in this situation. Shell babelfish 23:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
His behaviour here was inappropriate, yes, but not in contravention of any editing restrictions. Was he blocked for eight days for rudeness? Ilkali (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The section of the motion Ilkali quotes, with full context reads: "or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited".
I thank people for taking time to consider this matter. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, the text I omitted only goes into detail on what Abtract can do on pages he hasn't previously edited. It stands that the restriction states nothing about pages he has already been active on. This isn't just a technicality. The restriction is meant to prevent further stalking, not content disputes. The best course of action for both of you would have been to disengage from any articles you had previously clashed on. Ilkali (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the relevant part of the remedy is "Abtract (talk · contribs) is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), on any page in Wikipedia, or to harass Alastair Haines" - the part after that is "such as" indicating that the following is an example, but that this is not the only prohibited behavior. Clearly Abtract both commented on and interacted with, both of which are expressly prohibited. This isn't about rudeness, its about a clear direction to completely avoid Alastair Haines - Alastair is not under similar restriction. Shell babelfish 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Abtract is blocked for eight days. Alistair haines is limited to one revert every seven. Coincidence? I think not.--Tznkai (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If that's our interpretation then the "but Abtract hasn't previous edited" clause is completely redundant and should never have been included. I think it's more likely it was included to give guidance in situations like this one, where otherwise the rule would allow the protected party to game the system and instantly 'win' all existing content disputes. Ilkali (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Abtract arrived at Virginity after AH[92], and continued to edit it disruptively while the motion was open[93], and this was a large part of why the committee passed the motion which was much stronger than the remedies which I initially requested. I think it is appropriate that the articles provided as justification of the motion are grandfathered into this remedy. Those articles are Gender of God, Singular they, Manliness, Galaxy formation and evolution, and Virginity : in all cases Abtract appears after AH. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Procedurally and pseudolegally, Jayvdb's idea makes a lot of sense, but at this point I prefer a simple litmus test: Abract's behavior needs to stop. This is one way of doing it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please use the article's talk page to pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

Setanta747 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week, which was imposed here. He has reverted twice on Sinn Féin to restore information I had removed as unsourced - first revert and second revert. Note that Setanta747 has previously refused to source this information, seemingly under the impression that Wikipedia:Verifiability does not apply to him. The tone used on the Talk Page is therefore uncalled for and there is no need for it, a bit of civility goes a long way. Sorry for having to come here, but the way editors carry on with me is beyond a joke. Thanks Domer48'fenian' 09:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of Setanta's behaviour, which doesn't seem bad to me, why did you remove the information as unsourced when it is pretty easy to source? Did you just not like the statement?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
We can do this fairly easily. Setanta. Don't do that again. And I have found a reference as well from a book via google search. Hopefully both sides will be satisfied? SirFozzie (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They accept that the information is incorrect, regardless of how common it is. They did remove the tag and then asked why the information was removed. They did revert twice, regardless of AE sanctions. The talk page comments is behaviour we want to avoide. Thats what the problem is. --Domer48'fenian' 09:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone already beat me to it, but here's the ref I was going to use: [94]. I will speak with Setanta on his page. SirFozzie (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
As a person who has lived in Northern Ireland for many years (as explained on the talk page), I might be considered something of an expert ("someone with a reasonable knowledge") with regard to this particular issue. I am sure that other editors from Northern Ireland will agree that "ourselves alone" is probably the most common translation for "Sinn Féin".
While I appreciate the policy of verifiability, and I appreciate that the word of an editor is not a valid source for Wikipedia, I believe there is also precedent for the noting of common knowledge. There is no need to cite that the sky is blue. The statement wasn't controversial or negative with regard to Sinn Féin.
I would argue that the notion of a "correct" translation is subjective to some degree. It could be argued that "Sinn Féin" means "own ourselves", for example - and that would probably fit with Sinn Féin's overriding political ideology. It might be useful if someone could discover Griffith's original intention when he (or who ever did) came up with the name. To that end, I see no real need to suggest that "ourselves alone" is necessarily incorrect or, perhaps it might be more correct to suggest that it might be linguistically slightly off from a technical perspective. For that, it might be prudent to get a citation from a reputable source - from a experts in linguistics. The fact remains though, that "ourselves alone" is a common translation of the phrase, just as the sky is blue. I don't see the need to have multiple note tags in the text, which rather breaks up the style.
With regard to this action attempted against me, I am grateful to SirFozzie for applying common sense in this instance. While, technically speaking, I could be considered in breach of this Arbcom crap, I would suggest that Domer48's behaviour in relation to this issue might also be considered in breach. Domer48's intransigence can be shown, as TU suggested, by the simple fact that he could have easily (some citations can be very hard to find - but not in this case) provided a reference, rather than adding a fact tag, and then removing the relevant text completely. If we were all to adhere so very strictly to the many policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, articles would never get written and progress would be much slower. To that end, considering Domer48's apparent penchant for complaining about an editor at the drop of a hat, and considering his unwillingness to act in good faith, I believe Domer48 to be guilty of disruptive behaviour. This was a rather trivial matter which could have saved a lot of time and effort had Domer48 acted in good faith instead of being intransigent. Domer48 is also guilty of reverting more than once himself in this case and as such is in breach of the Arbcom as well. Perhaps someone should make him aware of this and warn him also.
Domer48 should bear in mind that when often when I revert with an edit comment, this is an invitation to discuss the issue - not an invitation to go ahead and revert to the version he feels is appropriate.
By the way, isn't it policy to notify an editor when you make a complaint against him? Thankfully, I was intelligent enough to have a quick look at Domer48's edit history, which led me to this page.
I do not see anything wrong whatsoever with the comments I made, or "behaviour" or "tone", on the article's talk page.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate the need to use common sense in such matters and I commend SirFozzie's application of it in this instance. If I ignored common sense, I could easily add an Arbcom case against Domer48 here on at least two counts. I won't do so because I believe it would be petty and disruptive and I will also assume good faith in that I will assume that Domer48 was not previously aware that the sky was blue as perhaps he has never looked up at the sky. --Setanta 14:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I illustrated, it was you who removed the tag that I placed. The reason it was placed there was because the information was incorrect. I allowed editors to reference it, and no one did, so it was removed. It was you who said “I don't think there's a need to include a source for this, as it's pretty well-known in NI” when you removed it. You then said “somebody removed this, somewhere along the line” when you replaced it and still did not provide a reference. On your second revert you said “Have you ever been to Northern Ireland?”

Now is that your rational for replacing the unreferenced information? On the talk page, you accept that the translation is wrong, and you still add it back, and still don’t reference it. So instead of the sky being blue, you deliberately added factually incorrect information which you knew and claimed that it was common knowledge.

Now I do apply common sense all the time, that is I do not add factually incorrect no matter how common it is. I reference everything I add, and remove unreferenced information. So my simple advice is don’t remove citation tags unless you plan to reference it. Don’t add factually incorrect information and claim it is common knowledge. --Domer48'fenian' 18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll expand more on this in a minute but for now, I don't see anywhere on the talkpage where Setanta accepts that that information is incorrect - he states "whether correct or not" indicating to anyone that he doesn't know. Valenciano (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"I can assure you that this is the single most common translation for the name - whether it is considered technically "correct", linguistically speaking, or not." So they are aware. Now this is AE, and I reported a breech of ArbCom Sanctions. I was not aware that sanctions were only arbitrarily applied depending on who ever address the breech. If you have a problem with references on the article take it there. It is agreed by all that the AE sanctions were breeched, and it has been addressed. Now on my talk page you suggest I have breeched 1RR please provide the diff’s ? I can see two completely different edits, but I may be wrong? I don’t think so? I introduced new and correctly referenced text here, you removed it, without comment on the talk page, with an edit summary which says see talk, I used the talk page and reverted based on the rational I gave. That is one revert as seen here. I have provided the necessary quote from the reference, could you do the same, thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please - This page is not designed as an open forum to pursue dispute resolution. Take this to talk. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Resolved: Mooretwin given warning, and advised of the proper place to bring up diffs of possible misconduct SirFozzie (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it acceptable for editors to tag-team to get round 1RR, viz. Domer48 and Big Dunc? [here], [here], [here] Mooretwin (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin, I have advised you several times to drop the tag team accusations, or if you absolutely had to bring them up yet again, do so in the context of the ongoing ArbCom case (with DIFFS that show that they're tag teaming you, not just that they both disagree with you). If you do this again, I will block you for personal attacks. SirFozzie (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought this was the ongoing ArbCom case. This is where you directed me. I'm really confused now. Mooretwin (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me try again. See where I posted my evidence towards you? ( is the URL, [95] is a direct link. That's the ArbCom case dealing with the Ireland naming dispute (and the conduct of the editors IN that naming dispute). I suggest you post the evidence there (in your own section). SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, SirFozzie was not the only person who pointed you to the relevant page during your latest dispute about capitalization of Site of Special Scientific Interest, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and others (see User talk:Mooretwin, User talk:Ddstretch and User talk:SirFozzie): I did.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I was pointed to the wrong page by both of you. Hence the confusion. Eventually Sir Fozzie directed me to the correct page. Mooretwin (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming in mostly cold on this one. As far as I can see from RFAR: The Troubles,

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is on a topic 1RR[96]
Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is on a normal 1RR[97].

If so, they have both broken their existing editing restrictions and should be issued editing holidays.
On the 14th, Domer reverted Mooretwin on Northern Ireland and Sinn Féin; and on the 11th, Domer reverted Mooretwin a whole raft of articles.
User:SheffieldSteel blocked user:Mooretwin for a week at 14:11, 16 December 2008; this hasnt been logged on the RFAR log.
John Vandenberg (chat) 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the block, I was aware of the article probation but not of any restrictions on the individual editors. I will make a note in the log. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I like to point out to John Vandenberg I am not on any 1RR and that it the articles that are on 1RR. I have not breeched the 1RR. I've checked out the Northern Ireland article and no there is no breech of 1RR. I have now checked my edits for the 11th, and again no breech of 1RR. Could John Vandenberg possibly be mixing 1RR with 0RR? Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Domer is no longer on any specific restrictions following a number of threads and actions, I will update the log momentarily.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Domer; I did know that this situation was more complex than the already complex log indicates, which is why I posted here and didnt act on it. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tznkai for that, I hope that will clarify things for editors. --Domer48'fenian' 20:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please have a word with Mooretwin, despite the above warning and a week block for edit warring and engaging in personal attacks, they insist on using their talk page now to attack editors. They have made accusations against two admins, who have tried to reason with them, and have ignored all advice and warnings. From here down on their talk page is a litany of abuse, blocks and warnings, a number of which they have removed. This report here resulted in the one week block. The conduct has been raised here on a current ArbCom case, and this case here at AE. All I want is the name calling to stop, and to get on with editing. I have in the recent past asked that Mooretwin, not be blocked for the edit warring and breech of AE sanctions. I have asked and tried to be reasonable when asking them no to make accusations. I've placed warnings on their page, and it has been suggested that I go to AE here, by an Admin who has bent over backwards to help. I really don't want to have to go there, and every one who know me knows why, so all I'm asking for is that someone have a word and try to reason with them, before their block expires. Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 21:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of the two admins who am probably too involved now to be a fair judge of what to do with Mooretwin, but let me say this. Mooretwin has racked up five or six edit-warring blocks in less then four months (First one was August 29th, latest one was the 16th of this month), and attacks other editors habitually. The last block was for edit warring personal attacks back on to multiple pages. This is his second one week block. At some point, we need to inform him he's on a LAST chance, and then lengthen the blocks if the behaviour doesn't improve. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
He must know by now that any further disruption will result in escalating blocks, next one of at least 4 weeks, and so on. Does he need a formal announcement? If so, let me know and I willbe happy to oblige. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. User_talk:Mooretwin#Notice_2. Can this thread be closed now? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with it. SirFozzie (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Please see [104], this John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also tackled at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Sockofadix_is_User:Fadix_evading_one_year_block. and User_talk:Jpgordon#Sockofadix. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor apparently wants to get an indefinite block on the Fadix account. At this point I think we might as well do that and maybe run a checkuser to make sure no more socks are lurking around. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban was extended by one year, so I do not think there is anything else to be done here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well we could just make him happy and make it indefinite. If he wants to come back in a year we can then just unblock him. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Enough is enough. Indeffed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need a formal warning for an IP editor[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Cold fusion is under WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE because it's a pathological science or fringe science that has been given as an example of pseudoscience, (although it was rejected to label it as pseudoscience on this RFC.)

This should be quite uncontroversial. An editor with a big WP:COI comes to the talk page of an article, claims that there is a skeptic conspiracy to make up nonsense and put it in the article to replace real sources, engages into lenghthy OR discussions, claims that all papers showing negative results are faked by their authors, that sources can be falsified by examining leaked raw data, shows his self-published papers that he co-authored as proof against prestigious journals, forces other editors to engage into more OR to disproof his misrepresentations, calls wikipedia editors "a bunch of ignorant crackpots"[105], insists that wikipedia sucks (but keeps commenting on the talk page with no intention of improving the articles, a violation of WP:TALK), promotes his own website as the alpha an omega of cold fusion sourcing, uses the page as a WP:SOAPBOX, claims that "[not treating his sources seriously] is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias."[106], clutters the talk page history with useless OR (42 of last 100 edits as of 01:52, 10 December 2008[107], counting also Sinebot because he doesn't see the point of signing[108] even after being asked nicely by several editors[109]), when menaced with arbitration discrectionary sanctions[110] he replies "Go ahead! Do your worst!" and claims that he is "not planning to edit this or any other article. I wouldn't touch a Wikipedia article with the fag end of a barge poll, nor would any scientist I know"[111] and has continued his behaviour since then (6 days ago).

Pvkeller explains the problem perfectly:

Putting Wiki policy to one side, it is not so much citing sources of dubious probity that seems a problem to me. It is more a combination of tactics:
1) Insisting that anyone who has not read all your source must accept that your sources demonstrate whatever you say they do;
2) Claiming your sources say or prove more than they do. On several occassion I have spent hours investigating your citations only to find they proved far less than you claimed;
3) Dismissing all sources that do not support your POV, and attacking those who cite those sources;
4) Arguing that every instance of treating your sources seriously is an avowal of those source or an agreement with their conclusions, even if the instance does not result in publication or funding; and
5) Arguing that every instance of not treating your sources seriously is a display of unfair bias.
I would like to see you try harder to be pursuasive without browbeating.[112]

Since wikipedia is not he place for massive COI'd OR, I would thank an uninvolved admin to give him a formal warning ({{Pseudoscience_enforcement}} will do) so he can be sanctioned if he keeps on with his behaviour. (since it's a dynamic IP, it should be given on Talk:Cold fusion?

Lists of diffs (collapsed to avoid cluttering this page):

warning about arbitration, his replies

On 4 December 2008 I warned Jed about using unreliable sources to falsify reliable sources, and engagin on OR the talk page, finishing with this: "Jed, either you stop filling the page with WP:OR or I'll start asking admins to bring the arbitration stick of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE down on you." [113]

His answer was: "Go ahead! Do your worst. You skeptics have done that to me before. I couldn't care less. I am not planning to edit this or any other article. I wouldn't touch a Wikipedia article with the fag end of a barge poll, nor would any scientist I know." [114].

User:Pvkeller explains perfectly the problem, so I'll copy/paste it here:

Putting Wiki policy to one side, it is not so much citing sources of dubious probity that seems a problem to me. It is more a combination of tactics:
1) Insisting that anyone who has not read all your source must accept that your sources demonstrate whatever you say they do;
2) Claiming your sources say or prove more than they do. On several occassion I have spent hours investigating your citations only to find they proved far less than you claimed;
3) Dismissing all sources that do not support your POV, and attacking those who cite those sources;
4) Arguing that every instance of treating your sources seriously is an avowal of those source or an agreement with their conclusions, even if the instance does not result in publication or funding; and
5) Arguing that every instance of not treating your sources seriously is a display of unfair bias.
I would like to see you try harder to be pursuasive without browbeating.[115]

Jed's answer was yet more OR and promotion of his own site " I have 3,500 papers. These papers and books constitute 99% of everything published on the subject, in English", insisting that NPOV is imposible because science is based on facts ""POV" means point of view, or opinion. Science is based on facts and laws, not points of view.", and insisting that he has the WP:TRUTH "There are no other sources. (...) [not treating his sources seriously] is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias."[116]

Examples of OR

using a list of 200 papers (primary sources) as proof that fusion happened, and saying that a laboratory is not prestigious or journal is not high-profile are "judgement calls" [117]. This simply denies the capability of editors to reject fringe sources.

Lots of OR about how a certain experiment demonstrated something or not, and suggesting that a paper on a low-impact journal and a video of a working motor are a reliable source [118]

In reply to "[you are using] unreliable sources [to say that] reliable sources should not be taken into account or had fake data"[119] he cites a paper on a fringe journal to say "You can see at glance that the data is fake! Part of the graph is replaced with crudely fabricated, hand-drawn data." and continues "You can tell even more clearly because one of the researchers accidentally leaked the original data, which shows excess heat in the part that was replaced with hand-drawn dots" and suggests to read the "official MIT hearing" (again, reliance on primary sources) [120]

"I find it very persuasive when a cell with ~20 ml of water and a few grams of palladium produces megajoules of energy with no input power and no chemical changes, and it produces helium. I think that is proof that a nuclear reaction is occurring. However, you may not find that persuasive, so perhaps you should look at some other aspect of cold fusion, such as tritium production or host-metal transmutations."[121]

"Such claims cannot be put to the test by examining colorimetric data, whereas anyone who knows a little chemistry will find glaring errors in papers by Morrison or Hoffman.)" [122]

failures to replicate don't count as negatives, all failures to replicate were due to errors that are now understood, all negative results were either faked or had failures for "obvious reasons not worth discussing in detail unless you are an expert", there is only a dozen negative papers on reliable sources, (since failures to replicate don't count as negatives), all positive results are correct and can't be disproved in any way (and finding errors on them would "overthrow the laws of thermodynamics and a large part of chemistry and physics going back to 1860"), all arguments against cold fusion are "not valid", only "six actual, professional scientists" have ever published papers showing errors but "their work has no merit" and they are "first-class crackpots"

"We know why the null experiments produced no heat; we can see that the false negatives are actually positive (just do the arithmetic right and you will see this) and anyone who looks at the fake data in the peer-reviewed paper will see that it is fake. You do not need to take my word for any of this -- the data speaks for itself."[123]

"There are no peer-reviewed papers from top journals that call cold fusion into question. Not one study and not one paper has ever demonstrated an error in a positive cold fusion paper If anyone ever did find an error, it would not only disprove cold fusion, it would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics and a large part of chemistry and physics going back to 1860. That isn't going to happen."[124]

"There are no negative papers in APS journals, or anywhere else. Only about a dozen negative papers have been published in history of cold fusion (...) There were several early papers describing experiments that did not work. That's a null, not a negative. The authors did not discover any fault in the positive experiments, or any other reason to doubt them. The reasons these early experiments failed is new well understood and has been described in detail. (...) Actually, the three most famous negative papers, at Cal Tech, Harwell and MIT were false negatives. (Actually positive.) They all got excess heat at the same rate as others did in 1989, but they did not realize it, or they erased it and published fake results. (...) There are no experimental counter-claims. No one has ever done an experiment that calls into question cold fusion, or an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior (i.e., one that produces tritium or megajoules of heat per mole of reactant.) (...) The failures were all for obvious reasons not worth discussing in detail unless you are an expert." [125]

"There are, in fact, six actual, professional scientists who have published papers and books that purport to find errors in cold fusion experiments. I have uploaded as much of their work as they have given me permission to upload. I encourage everyone to read them, especially Huizenga, Hoffman and Morrison, because I think their work has no merit. It will convince readers that there are no valid arguments against cold fusion, which is correct. If you want to add their arguments to this article, I encourage you to do so. They are first-class crackpots, but unlike the anonymous crackpot opinions now littering the article these are from real professors with names from legitimate institutions who have actually published papers with falsifiable technical claims -- papers you can read at a library, or at RM'D. (A few others have written books attacking cold fusion that have no technical content; that is, no falsifiable technical arguments that can be resolved with reference to data. For example, Park claims that all cold fusion scientists are liars, lunatics or criminals. Such claims cannot be put to the test by examining colorimetric data, whereas anyone who knows a little chemistry will find glaring errors in papers by Morrison or Hoffman.)" [126]

"Shanahan's hypotheses, if true, would disprove most electrochemistry and calorimetry going back to Lavoisier's 1781 ice calorimeter (which is used in some cold fusion experiments), and J. P. Joules's calorimeter circa 1845 (which is used in many others). There is no chance Shanahan is correct." (follows rant about why skeptics believe him)[127]

citing a paper that in which he participated and which has been published only on his website, in order to disproof 174 early failures to replicate the original experiment of Pons and Fleischmann

"As it happens, we just today uploaded a review paper discussing some of early failures, and the reasons for them: RM'D] The authors examined 174 papers, in detail. They did a lot of analysis not shown in the paper. (I assisted so I know about it.)"[128]

skeptic conspiracy to put nonsense on the cold fusion article, which prevents cold fusion from getting funds

"On the other hand, the article is full of irrelevant and unimportant stuff, not to mention imaginary nonsense cooked up by 'skeptics.' Replacing some of that garbage with Arata might not be a bad idea. But anyway, Wikipedia belongs to the 'skeptics' and know-nothings. They should do whatever they please with the article. No legitimate scientist will contribute."[129]

"[skeptics] point to an archived version of [my] site for some reason. I suppose this is some crazy scheme by the skeptics to stop people from reading LENR-CANR [my website], but it will not work for anyone who has half a brain (...) [skeptics] make things up and stuff them into the article. At least I have sources other than my own imagination! (...) You skeptics have done that to me before".[130]

"You and the other so-called skeptics have repeatedly erased peer-reviewed information about cold fusion and substituted your own unfounded opinions. You pay lip service to the peer-review, but you have no respect for the system or its results" [131]

"There is no chance Shanahan is correct. The fact that skeptics such Paul V. Keller are so quick to believe him, and add his theories to this article, shows that they are grasping at straws, and they will believe anything that comes along without a critical examination, even if it means they must throw away the whole basis of chemistry and physics"[132]

"That's the difference between me and anti-cold fusion people (...) My opponents, on the other hand, want you to ignore me -- just as they want you to ignore the scientific literature, and the laws of physics and chemistry (...) They want to squelch the debate and keep everyone ignorant, and Beware! Beware! of actual data and peer-reviewed papers!" [133]

"The field is not funded because there is enormous academic opposition to it, which comes mainly from people like Keller who do not read the literature and thus know nothing about the research, and yet who feel free to fabricate claims about it such as the notion that gamma rays have not been detected by other means! And also to free associate and invent new definitions for 'pathological science' such as: 'returning to the original theory.' Despite the opposition, a great deal of progress has been made (...)"[134]

wikipedia editors on cold fusion are "a bunch of ignorant crackpots who do not understand the laws of thermodynamics"

"[Many distinguished experimentalists and theorists, including Nobel laureates , etc] They do not make stupid mistakes. They have repeated the experiment thousands of times. They seldom read the kind of comments you skeptics make here, but when they do they instantly dismiss you people as a bunch of ignorant crackpots who do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, who have no clue how a calorimeter works, and who criticize papers they have never read. Naturally, I agree with them. You people imagine you are qualified to write an article about cold fusion. I doubt that you would casually edit some similar article about some other scientific research that you know nothing about, but for some inexplicable reason you imagine that you are experts on this subject, and that you can casually contradict the likes of Iyengar, Miles or Fleischmann. You imagine that their work is "discredited." This is unbelievable chutzpah. It is egomania. This is why Wikipedia will never become a viable source of information about this research."[135]

"Wikipedia articles about biology are not overrun by Creationist crackpots, so why are the 'skeptics' who know nothing about cold fusion allowed to overwrite this one?"[136]

COI, promotion of himself and his website

sings every single post with his name and website "Jed Rothwell, Librarian, RM'D".

"I have put years of effort into making both pro- and anti-cold papers available to the public at RM'D (...) I want everyone to know as much as possible. I have made hundreds of papers available, and people have downloaded 1.1 million copies of them. And by the way, if you want to know who I am, I suggest you read some of my papers at RM'D."

"Of course you read about them at RM'D to your heart's delight. I have compiled a list of null and false negative experiments; contact me via the front page."[137]

As a quiet witness, I'd just like to point out that this request is littered with false accusations. If I were to give a diagnosis, I would say this is largely the result of black-and-white thinking - a lot of the false accusations seem to stem from that.

  1. "claims that there is a skeptic conspiracy to make up nonsense and put it in the article to replace real sources"
    • false on its face
  2. "engages into lenghthy OR discussions"
    • i.e. corrects misinformation / fallacy (before it finds its way into the article)
  3. "claims that all papers showing negative results are faked by their authors"
    • providing a few (two, i think) concrete examples of faked negative results is not the same as claiming all results are negative. but apparently the acccuser has confused the two. this seems to be a case of the fallacy of the excluded middle.
  4. "...that sources can be falsified by examining leaked raw data"
    • not sources, but to show that published results are fradulant. this is a perfectly legitimate and widely accepted way to demonstrate fraud. i don't understand what your problem with it is, and am forced to conclude that it's simply a matter of prejudice.
  5. "shows his self-published papers that he co-authored as proof against prestigious journals"
    • I don't know what you're talking about here. Clearly, the article is to present all notable POVs.
  6. "forces other editors to engage into more OR to disproof his misrepresentations"
    • I have yet to see any editor "disprove" his "misrepresentations".
  7. "promotes his own website as the alpha an omega of cold fusion sourcing"
    • false on its face
  8. uses the page as a WP:SOAPBOX
    • As far as I'm aware, he hasn't made any edits to the article whatsoever.
  9. "claims that "[not treating his sources seriously] is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias.""
    • I think you misunderstand. The point is that not treating something seriously is, by definition, ignoring it. And although ignoring evidence that disagrees with one's convictions may be an unfortunate result of bias, people who are willing and able to think critically about a problem are able to suspend this unfortunate human trait in spite of any bias they may have. So ignorance does not always follow from bias. (And conversely, ignorance can be caused by things other than bias.) Thus, bias cannot be directly concluded, just a choice -- conscious or unconscious -- to ignore certain evidence.
  10. clutters the talk page history
    • Oh no!!
  11. (counting also Sinebot because he refuses to sign)
    • etiquette. but i do agree it's getting kind of old.
  12. "when menaced with arbitration discrectionary sanction..."
    • "menaced" - interesting word choice. anycase, yeah, that's a matter of record. i think the point is pretty clear: he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and thinks you're being frivolous. frankly, i agree.

Kevin Baastalk 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I find your statement inaccurate and diffless. I have added more diffs to address your points and expanded my comment, I urge uninvolved admins to check the diffs themselves to see if I'm making false accusations or not, and if this editor deserves a formal warning. Finally, WP:SOAPBOX also applies to talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you can't prove a negative. That's why I have no diffs. I would expect someone who would like to be thought of as scientifically-minded to not fall prey to that fallacy, above all.
But let's just say that your diffs are mine. My proof is in what they DON'T show. (hence "negative" in negative proof) That is, my claim is that, through exaggeration, black-and-white thinking, etc., you made for yourself a burden of evidence that cannot be fulfilled. In any case, I'll be waiting with bated breath for your diff showing him claim that "all papers showing negative results are faked by their authors". That one I've got to see to believe. Kevin Baastalk 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hum, just pick the third collapsable box, click on "show", and examine the four diffs there (he didn't make all the claims in one single diff). They are quite self-explanatory, and I think that my proof is on what they do show. If you think I'm exaggerating a claim, it should be easy to pick one of the boxes and show how the diffs don't support the corresponding statement, people at ANI do it every day despite your claim that it's a logical fallacy. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
They are. The one where he states "There were several early papers describing experiments that did not work. That's a null, not a negative. The authors did not discover any fault in the positive experiments, or any other reason to doubt them." clearly acknowledges the existence of "several" "negative" results that were not faked. When he says "that's a null, not a negative", he means -- and I thought this was pretty obvious -- that an experiment that fails to produce a result, even thought it's called "negative", does not disprove. For example, I could try to setup an experiment to do hot fusion, and I can tell you right now with almost absolute certainty that it will fail miserably. That would be a "negative result" if there ever was one, but by no stretch of the imagination would that prove that thermodynamic fusion is a bunch of B.S.
To do that, I'd have to take a "successful" thermodynamic experiment and show how the result is caused by something else. (and this doesn't mean making a fake positive result to show that all positive results are fake, or showing how positive results could be faked. i could do that for hot fusion, too. (just give me some cardboard, some crayons, some construction paper, and a scissors) but no self-respecting journal would publish it. (and i'd lose a lot of respect for myself.))
In fact, there is a positive that I can prove - you implied that he never acknolwedged the existence of any non-faked negative results. If I were to go and find a diff for you showing such acknowledgement, that would be it - the one you provided! [138] You just have to read it for meaning, not semantics. (And rest assured, I show you the same respect.) Like I said, your diffs are mine. And that is SO my diff. Kevin Baastalk 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
And I've read more of the other diffs you provided and it's all the same. Misrepresentation up the wazoo. If you were to show him the respect of a fair and accurate reading - if you were to honestly try to understand what he is trying to communicate - well, I think that would accomplished a lot more. Kevin Baastalk 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
well, I'll just wait for admins to look for themselves to the diffs and decide. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I fixed my statements on that box, so it's more accurate (and long and unwieldly *sigh*).
You are right that he doesn't consider all of them fakes, he says that the most famous three "did not realize [the evidence of excess heat], or they erased it and published fake results"[139] He still considers that there are no negative results at all, as he continues "There are no experimental counter-claims. No one has ever done an experiment that calls into question cold fusion, or an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior (...) The failures were all for obvious reasons (...)". I changed my statement to " all negative results were either faked or had failures for 'obvious reasons not worth discussing in detail unless you are an expert'"
I don't think that there is any special meaning to read, he plainly says that the failures to replicate are are "null, not negative", and later says that "Only about a dozen negative papers have been published in history of cold fusion"(same diff as above)
On the positive diff: yeah, that's the one I found too, I used it just above :D . I like how he didn't compile any actually negative experiment (because he doesn't believe that there is any at all, just "false negatives"!, lol). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any "actually negative experiment" either (in the manner described above: "To do that, I'd have to take a "successful" thermodynamic experiment..."), and you can laugh at me all you like for that. If there had been one, I would expect to see it at least mentioned in the cold fusion article, and surely the matter would be settled. For example, in the polywater article, the "other cause" was found: "Chemical analysis invariably found that samples of polywater were contaminated with other substances (explaining the changes in melting and boiling points), and examination of polywater via electron microscopy showed that it also contained small particles of various solids from silicon to phospholipids, explaining its greater viscosity. ... When the experiments that had produced polywater were repeated with thoroughly cleaned glassware, the anomalous properties of the resulting water vanished." As I understand it, this is not the case for C.F. And thus, Jed is correct in his assertion, however funny you think that might be. Kevin Baastalk 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There are experiments that are clearly negative on its conclusions about cold fusion, even if none of them is conclusive enough to close the dispute forever like polywater, so that's not the issue here.
The issue here is that he has disqualified not just all negative experiments, but also every experiment that casted a bad light on cold fusion, and he has done it by way of his unpublished personal OR, ignoring completely the reliability of the sources. Indeed, not only he has dismissed all reliable sources, but he has also questioned the reliability of the authors of papers that found errors in cold fusion experiments calling "the only six actual, professional scientists" doing them as "first-class crackpots"[140], independently of the prestige or reliability of the authors, and independently of the reliability of the journals that published their findings.
That is a behaviour issue, concretely one of disrespect for wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of completely dissing the WP:RS guideline in favor of his own personal OR and opinions, and then insisting once and again on the talk page despite explicitally saying that he has no intention at all to help improve the article (a violation of WP:TALK guideline), and then dissing the warnings to stop. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure he's been dimunitive of some scientists but so have skeptics on the talk page, and he's just as entitled to his own opinion as they are to theirs. I don't see any OR he's put in the article, or anything for that matter. I think he's been rather helpful and informative, and i can provide plenty of diffs to back that up if you like.
As to the polywater example, it is quite pertinent to the issue, as the issue that we are(were) discussing is the interpretation of what was written. I'm sure you can see the prudence of getting all the facts straight before making a judgement. I provided the example to help clarify what Jed was saying. To my knowledge, no experiments have been done that are logically capable of "disproving C.F.". It helps to clarify the logical relationship of experiments, and that's what was being done. You somehow interpreted that as disqualifying experiments. And you said he hasn't compiled any negative results when in fact he said himself in a diff you provided that he has a pretty big list of them. And he never said he didn't believe there were any negative experiments. (how could he have a list of them then?) That's your own misinterpretation of what he wrote. Kevin Baastalk 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And might I add, you still have quite a bit of B.S. in your diff title. For instance "all positive results are correct and can't be disproved in any way" is clearly an inaccurate characterization as he never said all positive results are correct and he in fact explained how one could go about disproving them. (Besides, to say that something can't be disproved is to discredit it, as that which is not falsifiable is not scientific.) Kevin Baastalk 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No, seriously, that cold fusion can be disproved or not is not a content issue, it's a discussion on philosophy of science, and it has nothing to do with the exaggerated assertions that Jed does about how finding any error on positive experiments would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics among other things [141][142]. If he ever said how you can disprove cold fusion experiments, then please provide the diff, because I wasn't able to find it. (I added a pair of diffs, btw)
And, for the last time, WP:SOAPBOX also applies to talk pages, so don't say that he didn't edit the article as if this somehow exculpated him of using the talk page for advocacy. It won't be the first time that someone gets warned for disrupting talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Whether cold fusion can be disproved or not isn't even being debated anywhere and never has been. (Clearly if it couldn't be disproved it wouldn't even be remotely scientific.) I've gone over this already. Philosophy of science is quite pertinent as the article is about a scientific topic and it the content should be presented as accurately as possible, esp. from the standpoint of science. It is esp. pertinent to the C.F. article because some consider C.F. to be pseudoscience. And Jed had never said or implied that "finding any error on positive experiments would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics". The diff you provide as evidence ([143]) doesn't even come close to saying that. You really need to stop putting words in his mouth. It's dishonest.
As to your comment: "And, for the last time, WP:SOAPBOX also applies to talk pages," I haven't disputed this in any way, so I don't know why you're saying "for the last time...". It seems to me like you're arguing against an imaginary enemy here. Kevin Baastalk 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, the correct diff is [144]. It's a literal quote from him. Well, dunno, maybe I'm really arguing against an imaginary enemy. I already exposed my statements and I accompanied them with the compulsory diffs, so I'll just STFU and let people read the diffs and decide by themselves just like I should have done a dozen comments ago. *surrepticiously goes to check the diffs one by one in case there are more mistakes* --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
That just happens to be the diff for my quote below! I think by "If anyone ever did find an error, it would not only disprove cold fusion, it would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics and a large part of chemistry and physics going back to 1860." he's referring to the fact that there isn't enough potential energy in the cell to produce the amount of heat observed. So without e=mc, the cell violates the law of conservation of energy. Kind of analogous to what's been said about polywater: "It has been suggested that polywater should have been dismissed on theorical grounds. The laws of thermodynamics, which were already known at that time, predicted that, since polywater had a higher boiling point than ordinary water, it meant that it was more stable, and the whole column of ordinary water should have turned spontaneously into polywater, instead of just part of it." However, the C.F. argument assumes that the potential energy and excess heat measurements are fairly accurate. If you can find errors in the calculations sufficient to account for the discrepancy, or find a new (non-nuclear) source of energy in the cell, then you could potentially show that the phenomena is not nuclear, without violating the law of conservation of energy. Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, I haven't gone through the trouble of collecting diffs, but here are some quotations from a brief perusal of the page: "Cold fusion is purely experimental. It is not based on theory, or guided by theory, and at present no theory can explain it. The notion that there is an "original theory" to "go back to" is nonsense. Szpak and others are trying to determine the nature of the reaction using different techniques. They are not trying to prove or disprove any particular theory, but rather to find out what nature has to teach us." Translation: there is no acting theory to "prove" or "disprove". There is a cause to be discovered. (Perhaps the term "cold fusion" is misleading in that respect, because no one really knows what it is.)
"No one has ever done ... an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior (i.e., one that produces tritium or megajoules of heat per mole of reactant.)" - there you go, "an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior", like i said above. I remember reading something a little more elaborate than that, but that does just fine. Again, the way to show that C.F. is not the cause of the phenomena is to find out exactly what is. And this can't just be for one experiment. If there are other experiments in which said cause does not explain the results, then something different is going on there. A good theory should explain all of the experimental results (including the negative ones). This is hard to do of course, but it's been done numerous times before -- it's how we got the scientific theories we have in the first place. Kevin Baastalk 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* This is the same OR that I am complaining about. There are secondary reliable sources saying that it's not been proved and that the evidence is not convincing. Period. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What research? I just gave you the talk page diffs you asked for and elaborated a little on them. How is that OR? Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're calling my definition of a scientific theory ("A good theory should explain all of the experimental results...") "original research", then you are mistaken. I learned this definition back in grade school. When they first taught the scientific method in my school, they defined "hypothesis", "experiment", "theory", etc., and I remember them saying that a theory ties the results of many experiments together. Perhaps that wasn't part of your curriculum. But whatever the case, you need only look up the word theory in wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia, I imagine). Quoting the wikipedia article on theory (science section): "It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.", and "Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems". Alternatively, I suppose, I could have just referred you to the wikipedia article on theory. But I wasn't expecting to be accused of "Original Research" for simply reiterating what should be common knowledge to any scientist. Kevin Baastalk 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Kevin, see, wikipedia is based on sources, not on wikipedian's personal opinion of what is a valid demostration of a scientific theory. The available secondary reliable sources have been already beaten to death several times on Talk:Cold fusion, there's no sense on rehashing them here again and making this page a sequel of the talk page. What I brought here is not a content dispute about an article, but a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX (with WP:COI sprinkled on top).

And, Kevin, seriously, I have to say that, if Jed's comments had resulted on improvements on the article, even if it wasn't his intention, I wouldn't have been so quick to complain. And if he was more responsive to warnings about disruption, and if he was actually open to concede when clearly reliable sources are presented to him, then I would have been way way waaaay more tolerant of his OR and I wouldn't even have complained about him, I would have instead engaged on conversation with him (and, if you ask me by email, I can actually point you to a user on cawiki where this is happening actually, and a user on eswiki that I didn't complain about until it was made clear by one of his edits that he had no intention to respect a consensus we had just built, which meant that I had just wasted many many hours of my time addressing his arguments in good faith). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the wikipedia article that i just cited is based on sources. And I didn't say anything about demonstration of scientific theories, so i don't know how that comparison came up. Point is -- as i have already stated -- i'm not giving you my personal opinion, i'm giving you the academic definition that you can verify all you want.
Where you see disruption, I see a person trying to clarify some misconceptions that some editors have, and them showing a lot of resistance to that. Clearly when editors have misconceptions about the subject they're writing about, that can have a detrimental effect on the article. And after you just called what I wrote above "the same OR that I am complaining about.", I'm a little skeptical about what you call "OR". As to good faith, I can assure you that I have wasted many, many hours addressing arguments in good faith, and I don't regret it. It's an essential part of good communication. Kevin Baastalk 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
"Clearing misconceptions" is not done by promoting your own unpublished research over the best published RS on the subject, like Jed is doing. That's called POV pushing. (answering on your talk page about wether citing Theory to disprove RS is OR)
That being said, Jed seems to be starting to recognize that "there are discussions" that some positive experiments could have errors and that some measurements are not yet satisfactorily replicated[145]. I was going to consider retracting my petition until I noticed his next message, saying that Phil's POV is worse than creationist's POV [146]. Oooops. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop arguing here. The IP made a few edits on December 4 to Talk:Cold fusion and has been inactive since. Most likely we should move on to better things than worry over this minor incident. Jehochman Talk 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AndroidCat (talk · contribs) readding inappropriate external links in John Carmichael (Scientologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[147] Scientology articles are under article probation as per last year's arbcom, requiring editors to be especially mindful of content policies. The videos re-added by AndroidCat are only marginally related to the article subject and moreover profoundly offensive. For example, the 2nd part of the video begins with "Robert Minton, recently profiled on [inaudible] will talk about shooting Scientologists, getting arrested, right ... no [laughs, laughter from others in the room] sorry, sorry [laughter from all]." Jayen466 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is at arbitration, as you well know. Please add evidence or parties to that case. This board is not for retaliation against content opponents. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration or not, if there are editors violating existing remedies, they need to be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not an editor of these articles. It is my opinion that there has been no violation of the ArbCom ruling. There seems to be a minor content dispute about an external link that could be settled with WP:3O or perhaps reference to WP:BLPN. WP:AE is overkill for this minor dispute. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, have you viewed the videos? Jayen466 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the introduction to one of them, and rapidly got bored. It looks like something that might not be an appropriate external link. If you folks want to push the matter, add it to the arbitration case; otherwise, this should be handled through dispute resolution. You'll note that this page is not part of DR. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Bah, they look like links to be avoided. I've taken them out. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with removing the links. Obviously, in addition to the Scientology ArbCom restrictions, there also the BLP restrictions, which could be more pertinent here. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have brought it here if it hadn't been an outrageous violation of WP:BLP and WP:EL. Articles are either under probation or not. If article probation cannot stem the flow of such material being added, then I don't know what will. I have no wish to edit-war over such material, or to explain to half a dozen editors who find this video fantastic just why it should be inappropriate. Jayen466 17:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this video contains a string of derogatory comments about a religious minority, and one of the speakers shown in it makes a well-received joke about shooting them. The video was added as an EL to the BLP of a member of said minority. It is inexcusable. Jayen466 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Every religion is a minority in some respect, so that's irrelevant. I agree with Jehochman that this would be better handled in the current ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Every race, too, is a minority in some respect. So how about videos of neo-Nazi rallies, with speeches featuring put-downs of Jews or black people, and jokes about shooting a few, added to BLPs of Jews or African Americans? It's not any better just because it's Scientologists here, is it? Or do you think we should make an exception for Scientologists? But by all means, I mentioned this thread in the arbcom evidence earlier today, so feel free to add AndroidCat as a party and invite him. And it is of course possible that AndroidCat never viewed the video and had no idea what exactly it contained. Still, I confess I was rather miffed. Cheers, Jayen466 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that makes special notice of minority religious issues. It's a red herring and irrelevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think policies on the use of fringe and extremist sources would apply to videos making such jokes as the ones described above? Jayen466 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a different matter. It's hard to say definitively that the critics of Scientology are a fringe or extremist element. I'm no expert, but just based on what I see in popular culture I'd say that the majority viewpoint of Scientology is critical. If you have evidence that this particular source is fringe then please present it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
How often do you read jokes about shooting Scientologists in mainstream sources, presented simply for reader amusement? The evidence is in the video (part 2) itself. Have you viewed it? Jayen466 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The video itself is probably authentic, and Mr. Carmichael did attend that meeting, so I'm not sure how this could be a violation of WP:BLP, but to me this is a simple matter of WP:WEIGHT and WP:EL. I doubt an argument could be made that this one meeting carries sufficient weight for inclusion in Carmichael's BLP, and the link is definitely one to avoid. I don't think here or the current ArbCom are the correct venues for dealing with it, though. A simple explanation of weighting and the reliability of google videos as a source are probably sufficient. AndroidCat has not tried to add them back again, and I left a note on his talk page. If it must be included in the ArbCom, it should go into a section about sourcing problems in general. --GoodDamon 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, GoodDamon. In these videos, Carmichael is shown a couple of times sitting on a chair, for a second or two, and is shown saying something right at the end of the second part, while the camera goes up his nostril. The rest of the 30 minutes, it is these guys mouthing off about what crap Scientology is. If you can't think what parts of WP:BLP that might violate, check through Wikipedia:BLP#External_links, Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources with a fine-toothed comb, and then look at Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people, which is referenced from WP:BLP. Do you see what I mean? Jayen466 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with BLP, thank you. I already said the links violate WP:EL (which you, uhmm, helpfully re-linked for me; thanks), but as for BLP... As you said, most of the video doesn't even include Mr. Carmichael, and features other people talking about Scientology... not about Carmichael. Hence to me, in addition to it being a link to avoid, it is also a link about something other than the subject of the article. It's a classic WP:COATRACK issue actually, using Carmichael's article to attack Scientology itself, with the excuse that he appears (very, very briefly) in the video. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the link. Deleting it was the right thing to do, and AndroidCat needs to know that. BLP was definitely violated too, but indirectly, not through disparagement of Carmichael himself, unless I missed that in the video... Have to admit, I tuned it out a little. Tres boring. --GoodDamon 19:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Further use of this board for drama mongering, soap boxing or attacking opponents may be met with warnings or sanctions. Please use the board only for appropriate purposes. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

This user has re-created an attack page User:Russavia/eSStonia which was speedy deleted under G10. Now edit warring speedy template while making uncivil comments. This is a breach of the Digwuren remedy against using Wikipedia as a battleground. Martintg (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Martintg is WP:STALKing my edits, placing Speedy tags on an article which is under development in my userspace. User:Orangemike deleted the article, and after I approached him, he has reinstated it, so that I can work on it with the sources which I have at hand. Martintg, is aware of this, and keeps placing speedy tags on an article which is in userspace, and which an admin has deleted and re-instated. And to think, I am still writing this actual piece. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
As to the uncivil comments, I have asked Martintg to stop WP:STALKing my edits around WP. As this article is under construction in my userspace, the only way to find it would have been by stalking. And he is not the only one, as can be evidenced here. A whole bunch of editors find themselves on another user's talk page, which none of them would have had reason to watch, but yet they all find their way there. It's stalking plain and simple, and I've had a gutful of it. My own editing history demonstrates that I am capable of building NPOV and V articles, but now this editor, via WP:STALKing has found something he doesn't like, and is being WP:DISRUPTive. Xasha's talk page demonstrates what is really happening with this group. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please don't throw out baseless accusations of stalking willy-nilly. Real stalking is serious business; it will do more harm than good to call everybody a stalker who points out your missteps. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Baseless accusations? Ok, I will prepare the official complaint now. --Russavia Dialogue 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
And furthermore, I will also point people's attention to terms such as Evil Empire, a pejorative term. Yet that has its place on WP. So does Great Satan. So does Axis of Evil. And then we come to Putinjugend, a derogatory pejorative which compares pro-Kremlin youth groups in Russia to those in Nazi Germany...and Martintg (and others) voted to keep that at AfD on the flimsiest of reasons, and by using the flimsiest of sources. As one of those who voted to keep said, WP is not censored. And furthermore, again, it is under development in my userspace, and has not yet been placed in mainspace due to it not being ready. And he is rushing to delete it, but actively WP:GAMEd the system to help keep Putinjugend. Tell me why is there hypocrisy here? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should give Russavia some time to improve the article to see if it matches our notability criteria. As it stayes now it certainly not a speedy delete material (much less then e.g. Putinjugend article that was recently !voted to be kept). I think after the article moved in the mainspace we can have an AfD discussion or if the development stalls we can have an MfD on the page. Russavia somehow himself provokes stalking him by having Stalk me in his signature, still I do not think stalking of users is a good practice Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Alex: it hardly qualifies for speedy. However this seems to be a case of WP:POINT: "eSStonia" has been created to "retaliate" for redirect page "Putinjugend", as Russavia just admitted himself. This reminds me creation of an inflammatory article Georgia for Georgians by Russavia after he had an argument about the Russian-Georgian war. Not surprisingly, that was followed by creation of Russia for Russians. Biophys (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Having investigated this further, it does seem to be a case of WP:POINT over a failed AfD, with Russavia suggesting to the closing admin as well as to his compatriot Xasha his intention to create this article, while making sweeping generalisations of bad faith in saying a group of users "are yet to voice an opinion that is not anti-Russian in nature, nor are they ever to voice a delete opinion on something that is an attack on Russia" while incorrectly citing AfDs I and others have never voted on, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinisms_(2nd_nomination), as evidence of this alleged "anti-Russian bias". Martintg (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
So if the first reason doesn't work, we try again on another reason Martintg? Perhaps my saying that the article could be created is demonstration that it may not be WP:POINT as you say. What I have thus far provided in my userspace is sourced to WP:RS, and will demonstrate it is a well-used term backed up by those sources, and everything I said on Xasha's talk page (whom I believe is Moldovan, which is not Antipodean) I stand by. As to Georgia for Georgians, that was created by myself, not for any non-existent argument, but because reading Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia, one gets the feeling that the Abkhazians woke up one morning and decided to massacre all Georgians, and all but mentioned in passing Gamsakhurdia's ethno-nationalist doctrine which was one of the major catalysts for the ethnic cleansing (needless to say, the ethnic cleansing article is near on impossible to edit, if you look at the talk-page, one can see that there is entrenched POV ideas on how this article should be presented). Unfortunately, as I speak English as my native language, I am more than capable of reading and understanding policies, and getting rid of me is going to take a lot more than fishing for sanctions by blockshopping. Will you admit you have stalked my edits Martin? Because that's the only way you would have found what I am working on in my userspace, and will continue to work on within the confines of WP policy. And I will ask here that you stop harrassing myself by stalking. --Russavia Dialogue 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have also expanded on Martintg's talk page here, that if stalking of my edits continues by any editor, I will present this evidence and ask for sanctions to be brought against those who are doing the stalking, under WP:STALK. I've had a gutful of the bullshit in this area of WP, and will no longer put up with having my edits followed by other editors (the fact this article is in my userspace is evidence of stalking!!!) and will not be put in the position that I am being harrassed by other editors. Now, people can call me a Putinista for all I give a damn, I have clearly and succinctly stated my reasons for even being involved on WP (are others so open to state their reasons??), and so long as I abide by policies and the spirit of those policies, then I will not be stopped from editing by being harrassed by others. Consider this a friendly notice to all of you. --Russavia Dialogue 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe if Wikipedia allows such bullshits like Putinjugend, Putinism, etc. (which are surely neologisms, WP:OR; WP:SYN, etc. To clarify: I AM NOT PUTIN'S ADMIRER), why not to allow eSStonia? Think about the root of the problem. For me, it is clear that some CONCRETE editors (Russiavia only answered them) fill Wiki with all this dirt not related to encyclopedic knowledge. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This post was about Russavia, and he indeed does a number of questionable edits at this very moment, including reverts made without any discussion. He just labeled Ukrainian president Yushenko as a "KGB officer", although he only served in the border guards... I corrected some of that, but an uninvolved admin. should probably look at his recent edits.Biophys (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Biophys, I really don't understand what are you talking about. Russavia, my suggestion for you is to create the article "demshizoid". The term is fairly referenced, at least not less than Putinjugend or eSStonia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Please state which edits? You are talking about those which were introduced by a banned sockpuppet? It is will within the confines of policy that I am able to revert any information, sourced or not, introduced by a banned user and their sockpuppets. An admin has reverted them, and so have I. Read WP:BAN and even WP:3RR. Be careful with re-including Hanzo's edits Biophys, because as WP:BAN, it could be construed, rightly or wrongly, as WP:MEAT. The information that the banned users sockpuppet has introduced needs to be gone over to check, and until such time as that is done, there is nothing wrong with removing their edits from WP. --Russavia Dialogue 23:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No, this is certainly not "within the confines of policy" to remove good and sourced content from WP articles, without even discussing it. As about your WP:MEAT accusation ... are you kidding?Biophys (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
When introduced by a banner user using a sockpuppet, most definitely it is. There is a reason that they have been indef banned, and that means that they are banned from editing WP in any way, shape or form. I would suggest that you bring User:Khoikhoi in on this, because he also too reverted edits by the sockpuppet of a banned user. As to WP:MEAT, it's not an accusation, I said it could be construed as, rightly or wrongly. --Russavia Dialogue 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors, this is not a chatroom. Please take discussions to the relevant article page. I do not see what sort of arbitration enforcement is possible here. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Editing dispute isn't covered by The Troubles ArbCom restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Goodcallclear (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding untrue statements to the Letterkenny article. He has broken the three-revert rule. See here, here, here, here, here and here. --Balloholic (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with arbcom enforcement? Shouldn't this be at WP:3RR? If there is an arbcase this relates to, pls always provide a link in your report.RlevseTalk 18:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Articles relating to The Troubles are under ArbCom restrictions, however this specific editing dispute doesn't appear to be covered. If the user continues edit warring then, as Rlevse suggests, post on WP:AN3. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Keverich1 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly edit-warring on Israel–United States military relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article currently under arbitration sanctions, to remove a sourced statement that he doesn't like. [148] The statement is a line which I contributed over a year ago, sourced to Jane's Sentinel, an impeccable source of military information. The editor has asserted that the line is original research, even though it directly reflects the wording of the original source, as I've explained on the article's talk page. He is clearly unwilling to assume good faith or to accept sourced statements that conflict with his personal views. [149][150] This is a pretty-clear cut violation of the arbitration sanctions, given the violation of the expected standards of behavior (WP:AGF) and the normal editorial process (WP:DR). Given the edit-warring in particular, I recommend a block. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to speak in my defence, I do assume good faith, but I also assume a Wikipedia rule, which requires that statements should be properly sourced. The statement in question was not sourced when introduced to the article, and has never been properly sourced ever since. The statement is this

Israel-United States military relations have been extremely close,[1] reflecting both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the influence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

Check this link see that the statement about the lobby was not referenced whatsoever [151]. Take a look at this version from mid 2007. [152]. Clearly the claim in question has remained unreferenced for over a year. The user ChrisO (talk · contribs) now asserts the claim "directly reflects the wording of the original source", altough he failed to provide the source when he introduced the statement more than a year ago.[153] The user ChrisO (talk · contribs) also refused to provide the exact quote from Jane's Sentinel, which would support the statement in question. Lastly, I do not think my edits in Israel–United States military relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are disruptive. I belive my edits in this article help to ensure all the statements are properly sourcedKeverich1 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
As I've said on the talk page, the copy of Jane's Sentinel that I used is not currently accessible to me (it may have escaped your notice that it's Christmas). I've said that I will check it after Christmas. You plainly don't have a copy of the publication, so you have no reasonable grounds to assume bad faith. You've falsely described it as "original research" when it's sourced, it's been sourced for a long time and the source is impeccable. You've effectively accused me of lying, and rather than assuming good faith and pursuing proper dispute resolution, you've edit-warred to repeatedly remove a sourced statement that you don't like. That isn't acceptable behaviour and it's a blatant violation of the arbitration sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you check the history of the article to see that the claim was unreferenced when I described it as original research. Futhermore, this is the version of the page as it existed since mid 2007 to december 2008[154]

Israel-United States military relations have been extremely close,[1] reflecting both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the influence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance from the United States since 1976, and the largest total recipient since World War II. [2] A major purchaser and user of US military equipment, Israel is also involved in the joint development of military technology and regularly engages in joint military exercises involving United States and other friendly forces.[3][4]

as you see the claim is unsourced whatsoever. Let me make this clear, I'm not deleting this statement for the sake of POV-push. I do think this statement can be present in the article, provided it is sourced properly. Currently, it is not.Keverich1 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've rolled back the edit in question. I'll leave it to someone else to determine the sanction. Frankly, removing this statement strikes me as denying the bleeding obvious for no very good reason, which can really only be done out of a desire to POV-push. Ergo, I recommend either a block or a page-ban: the choice is in the hands of whoever turns up next to this thread...Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions should be imposed; it is your job, do it. Personally, I did not appreciate getting unjustly shouted at concerning his first revert-type edit, discussed here starting Dec9. I maintained wiki-etiquette and feel no collaboration was intended from the start. My comments in that section state my case. It is already Christmas here, peace. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure CasualObserver'48 is entitled to comment in this section. For the record, please note he is an activist, who has personal interst in the Palestine-Israeli conflict as explained on his page. on talk page numerous users (but not me) have consistently accused him of trying to promote anti-Israel bias by his editsKeverich1 (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Without wanting to address the merits of the edit in question, I see no possibility of arbitration enforcement here: Keverich1 does not appear to have had specific sanctions imposed on him (as per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions). Accordingly, there is nothing to enforce here. Of course, such sanctions may now be imposed, or he may be blocked normally for editwarring if he continues in the same vein.  Sandstein  12:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • No, procedurally, this is wrong. Requests for application of arbcom discretionary sanctions, even if for the first time, do belong on this page. Moreschi (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Moreschi, obviously what you're saying is correct. However, the article edits were prior to his notification of the I-P restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Wikipedia guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do. On 24th December he followed me to various pages to make complaints about me here, here and here.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Wikipedia as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

  • I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
    • POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
    • A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
    • Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
    • Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
    • This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Wikipedia – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
    • However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
    • At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
    • There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
    • At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
    • During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
    • This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
    • You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.
  • I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.
  • Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
  • I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:BigDunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:BigDunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Wikipedia – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
  • Behaviour with Big Dunc on looks a bit like tag-teaming. Also here.
  • User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Wikipedia guidelines about disruptive editing:

  • tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
  • Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
  • Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

  • Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
  • Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Mooretwin (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


This is arbitration enforcement, not a general complaints noticeboard. Please specify which arbitration sanctions were violated by which edits, or this thread may be closed without action.  Sandstein  12:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally put it at AN, but was told to put it here. Could someone look into the complaints, please? Mooretwin (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
He's referring to The Troubles ArbCom general Sanctions, but generally I think Domer's in the right here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Regarding remedy #7 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, could I get one or two completely uninvolved administrators to read and sign off on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_-_needs_outside_attention? Thanks. --B (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How many "completely uninvolved" admins are there? I confess I am not, because I seem to recall that Deeceevoice had some less than glowingly positive views of me at some point in the past... but my point would be that I am not exactly unique in that regard. I would consider myself pretty uninvolved at this point, it's been years, IIRC, but I did comment in the recent discussion B refers to. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a bad idea to try to enforce a three year old decision. A lot has changed since them. Modern cases generally specify a one year time limit on remedies. The AN/I thread you linked is the proper place to discuss this. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference morton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).